Federal Reserve Bank

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 →

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 →

Bank Watch: Fed’s Require Quick Action from Three Banks

January 6, 2011

The Federal Reserve is requiring a quick turnaround from a Tennessee-based bank; while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) has taken issued prompt correction actions directives against two Oregon banks. BankEast in Knoxville, TN, received notification from the Federal Reserve Bank of a prompt corrective action directive (PCA) that additional capital is needed to be raised to restore the bank’s capital. A PCA is an action by federal regulators…

Read the full article →

Video: Goodfriend Says New Fed Voters Have Little Strategy Role

December 28, 2010

Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) — Marvin Goodfriend, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, discusses the new voting members of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee and their potential impact on the Fed’s monetary policy in 2011. Goodfriend, a former official at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, talks with Scarlet Fu on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness With Margaret Brennan.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

REVOLVING DOOR: 15-Year New York Fed Officer Joins Goldman

December 14, 2010

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) — Theo Lubke, who served for 15 years at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and headed its efforts to reform the private derivatives market, joined Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to a memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

Read the full article →

Fed: Don’t Get Too Excited About The Economic Recovery

December 14, 2010

WASHINGTON: The Federal Reserve on Tuesday offered only a cautious nod to the economy’s improving prospects as it put a spotlight on lofty unemployment and reaffirmed its commitment to buy $600 billion in bonds. In a statement that emphasized job market weakness and low inflation, the Fed characterized the U.S. expansion as “continuing,” a modest upgrade from its November description of the recovery as “slow.” “The economic recovery is continuing, though at a rate that has been insufficient to bring down unemployment,” the Fed said in a statement at the conclusion of a one-day meeting. The sober assessment stood in contrast to increasingly optimistic forecasts on Wall Street, where analysts have been revising economic projections based on a slew of stronger-than-expected data and a new government tax cut plan. As widely expected, the Fed offered no policy shift. It held overnight interest rates near zero, repeated a vow to keep rates exceptionally low for an extended period and renewed its pledge to buy about $75 billion worth of bonds a month to hold down long-term interest rates. “What I think the Fed is trying to do is kick the can, so to speak, until their January 2011 meeting,” said Joe Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist at TD Ameritrade in Chicago. The dollar edged up against the euro and the yen as the Fed offered no sign of expanding its bond buying, but Treasury bonds extended losses on the central bank’s dovish remarks. On Wall Street, stocks were little changed after the statement and ended the day modestly higher. GLOOMY OUTLOOK, DEFLATION CONCERNS While offering a tempered acknowledgment of the apparent strengthening in the economy, the Fed maintained its focus on the two principle areas it is trying address: high unemployment and a slowing in already low inflation. “The Fed continues to say that the outlook for employment and spending isn’t as strong as the market perceives it,” said Andrew Wilkinson, a senior market analyst for Interactive Brokers in Greenwich, Connecticut. Analysts also noted the omission of any mention of a sharp spike in bond yields that threatens to thwart the Fed’s campaign to lower borrowing costs. Yields on the benchmark 10-year Treasury are at highs not seen since May. “Playing ostrich?” wondered UBS economist Maury Harris. The Fed launched its program to buy longer-term Treasury securities early last month to support a weak economic recovery that was failing to generate jobs. The Fed had already bought $1.7 trillion in longer-term assets from late 2008 through the beginning of this year in a bid to boost the economy after it had cut short-term interest rates to near zero. The most recent bond-buying plan was assailed by critics, including foreign governments, concerned it could trigger inflation or set off a round of competitive currency devaluations by weakening the dollar. Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig again expressed concerns that the program could destabilize the economy, the Fed’s statement showed. He has dissented at every Fed policy meeting this year. Consumer and business demand appears to be picking up, with a report on Tuesday showing a solid gain in retail sales in November. But the U.S. jobless rate jumped to 9.8 percent last month from 9.6 percent in October and core inflation is at record lows. The economy looks set to get an additional boost from a deal between the White House and congressional Republicans to extend Bush-era income tax cuts that included a surprise reduction in payroll taxes. Some forecasters said the plan could lift growth next year by up to a full percentage point. (Reporting by Mark Felsenthal and Pedro da Costa, editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Gary Crosse) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

We Dare You To Find A Lower Rate: Wall Street Borrowed From Fed At 0.0078 Percent

December 1, 2010

NEW YORK — For the lucky few on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve sure was sweet. Nine firms — five of them foreign — were able to borrow between $5.2 billion and $6.2 billion in U.S. government securities, which effectively act like cash on Wall Street, for four-week intervals while paying one-time fees that amounted to the minuscule rate of 0.0078 percent. That is not a typo. On 33 separate transactions, the lucky nine were able to borrow billions as part of a crisis-era Fed program that lent the securities, known as Treasuries, for 28-day chunks to the now-18 firms known as primary dealers that are empowered to trade with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The program, called the Term Securities Lending Facility, ensured that the firms had cash on hand to lend, invest and trade. The market was freezing up. Effectively free money, courtesy of Uncle Sam, helped it thaw. The European firms — Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Deutsche Bank (Germany), Royal Bank of Scotland (U.K.), Barclays (U.K.), and BNP Paribas (France) — borrowed $5.2-6.2 billion in Treasuries 20 different times. The one-time fees they paid on each transaction ranged from $403,277.78 to $481,110. Deutsche led the way with seven such deals. On each transaction, the fee paid for the 28-day loan is equal to a rate of just 0.0078 percent. The first of these sweetheart deals began April 17, 2008. They ended nearly a year later on March 5. On that day, Goldman Sachs borrowed about $5.8 billion and paid just $450,000 for the privilege. Goldman was one of four American firms that also paid that rock-bottom rate. Citigroup, defunct investment bank Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch, which was gobbled up by Bank of America in a government-pushed transaction, benefited from the save-Wall-Street-at-all-costs approach. Goldman and Citi got the 0.0078 percent rate on five separate occasions, tops among U.S. banks. The transactions highlight the extraordinary steps taken by the Fed — and encouraged by both the Bush and Obama administrations — to save Wall Street from its own mistakes. Households and small businesses have not been as lucky. The Fed’s crisis-era programs “provided liquidity to particular institutions whose disorderly failure could have severely stressed an already fragile financial system,” the Fed said in a statement Wednesday posted on its website. A spokesman did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment. This year, Wall Street is poised to break yet another record for employee compensation and bonuses. Thanks to near-zero percent interest rates — also set by the Fed — firms are able to continue making easy money with minimal risk. *This story was updated at 8:30 p.m. ET. An earlier version of this article misstated the rate paid by the firms, the number of transactions, the amount of the fee, which varied by transaction, and incorrectly defined the rate itself. The rate, which was a fixed fee and not a traditional interest rate, was 0.0078 percent, not 0.0077 percent. There were at least 33 such transactions, not 31. And the actual fee paid ranged from $403,000 to $481,000, rather than a fee of about $384,000 for all of the transactions. ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the 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 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: Is QE2 the Road to Zimbabwe-style Hyperinflation? Not Likely

December 1, 2010

A month ago, the bond vigilantes were screaming that the Fed’s QE2 would be the first step on the road to Zimbabwe-style hundred trillion dollar notes. Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is the poster example of what can go wrong when a government pays its bills by printing money. Zimbabwe’s economy collapsed in 2008, when its currency hyperinflated to the point that it was trading with the U.S. dollar at an exchange rate of 10 trillion to 1. On November 29, Cullen Roche wrote in the Pragmatic Capitalist : Back in October the economic buzzwords had become “money printing” and “debt monetization” … [T]he Fed was initiating their policy of QE2 and you’d have been hard pressed to find someone in this country (and around the world for that matter) who wasn’t entirely convinced that the USA was about to send the dollar into some sort of death spiral. QE2 was about to set off a round of inflation that would make Zimbabwe look like a cakewalk. And then something odd happened — the dollar rallied as QE2 set sail and hasn’t looked back since. What really happened in Zimbabwe? And why does QE2 seem to be making the dollar stronger rather than weaker, as the inflationistas predicted? Anatomy of a Hyperinflation Professor Michael Hudson has studied hyperinflation extensively. He maintains that “every hyperinflation in history stems from the foreign exchange markets. It stems from governments trying to throw enough of their currency on the market to pay their foreign debts.” It is in the foreign exchange markets that a national currency becomes vulnerable to manipulation by speculators. The Zimbabwe economic crisis dated back to 2001, when the government defaulted on its loans and the IMF refused to make the usual accommodations, including refinancing and loan forgiveness. Zimbabwe’s credit was ruined and it could not get loans elsewhere, so the government resorted to issuing its own national currency and using the money to buy U.S. dollars on the foreign exchange market. These dollars were then used to pay the IMF and regain the country’s credit rating. According to a statement by the Zimbabwe central bank, the hyperinflation was caused by speculators who charged exorbitant rates for U.S. dollars, causing a drastic devaluation of the Zimbabwe currency. But something darker seems also to have been going on. Timothy Kalyegira , a columnist with the Daily Monitor of Uganda, wrote in a 2007 article: Most observers and the general public believe Zimbabwe’s economic crisis was brought about by Mugabe’s decision to seize white-owned commercial farms in 2000. That might well be true. But how about another, much more sinister element… sabotage? Kalyegira asked how a government “with the same tyrant called Mugabe as president, the same corruption, and same mismanagement, kept inflation down to single digit figures [before 2000], but after 2000, the same leader, government, and fiscal policies suddenly become so hopelessly incompetent that inflation is at the latest reported to be over 500,000 percent?” Canadian commentator Stephen Gowans calls it “warfare by other means .” Devaluing the enemy’s currency has been used as a war tactic historically. It was used by Napoleon against the Russians and by the British against the American colonists. In 1992, financier George Soros showed how it was done when his hedge fund, virtually single-handedly, brought down the British pound. His fund sold short more than $10 billion worth of pounds, forcing the Bank of England to devalue the currency, earning Soros an estimated $1.1 billion and the title “the man who broke the Bank of England.” In 1997, the UK Treasury estimated the cost at 3.4 billion pounds. One wonders, then, if it is just coincidence that the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa is a Soros-affiliated organization. According to Wikipedia , its director for Zimbabwe also directs the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, the main force behind the founding of the Movement for Democratic Change, the principal indigenous organization promoting regime change in Zimbabwe. War by Other Means The push for regime change in Zimbabwe was detailed by Stephen Gowans in a March 2007 article posted on Global Research. He wrote: Before 1980 Zimbabwe was a white-supremacist British colony named after the British financier Cecil Rhodes, whose company, the British South Africa Company, stole the land from the indigenous Matabele and Mashona people in the 1890s… Ever since veterans of the guerrilla war against apartheid Rhodesia violently seized white-owned farms in Zimbabwe, the country’s president, Robert Mugabe, has been demonized by politicians, human rights organizations and the media in the West… I’m going to argue that the basis for Mugabe’s demonization is the desire of Western powers to change the economic and land redistribution policies Mugabe’s government has pursued… and that the ultimate aim of regime change is to replace Mugabe with someone who can be counted on to reliably look after Western interests, and particularly British investments, in Zimbabwe. Timothy Kalyegira concurred in this theory, observing: A former undercover operative John Perkins recalled events that are strikingly familiar to what we see in Zimbabwe today: “[In] 1951… Iran rebelled against a British oil company that was exploiting Iranian natural resources and its people… An outraged England sought the help of her…ally, the United States… Washington dispatched CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt… to organize a series of… violent demonstrations, which created the impression that [Iranian Prime Minister] Mossadegh was both unpopular and inept. ( Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man , Ebury Press, 2005, page 18) Clearly, Mugabe’s capital crime was to displace White privilege in Zimbabwe and personally stand up to the White establishment in London and Washington. The U.S. Is Not Zimbabwe Even if Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation was the result of currency manipulation rather than exploitation by corrupt politicians, couldn’t the same thing happen to the U.S. dollar? The answer is, not likely. The U.S. does not owe debts in a foreign currency over which it has no control. It can issue bonds payable in its own currency. Today that currency is issued by the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned by a consortium of banks; but the Fed has been at least semi-captive ever since the 1960s, disgorging its profits to the Treasury. Its website states , “Federal Reserve Banks are not… operated for a profit, and each year they return to the U.S. Treasury all earnings in excess of Federal Reserve operating and other expenses.” The Federal Reserve Act provides that it can be modified or rescinded at any time, so Congress retains ultimate control. Randall Wray , Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, writes that “involuntary default is, literally, impossible for a sovereign government.” The U.S. does not have to rely on foreign investors even to buy its bonds. If the investors are not interested, the central bank can buy the bonds. That is, in fact, what the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing is all about: issuing $600 billion for the purchase of long-term government bonds. But what if foreign investors decide to dump their dollars, devaluing the U.S. currency? Again, this is not really a problem. As Warren Mosler observes , we’re actually trying to get China to revalue its currency upward, which is the same thing as devaluing the dollar. Cullen Roche remarks: [Y]ou can see the irony here… How many times do you read on the internet that we need a lower dollar to boost the economy? And how many times do you read every day that people are worried China will dump the dollar and cause the U.S. economy to sink into a black hole? These people don’t even understand the contradiction in their writing. When China sells dollars they’re just expressing a reduced demand on their part. If they find a willing holder of those dollars the dollars will be held elsewhere. Big deal. Unlike Zimbabwe, which had to have U.S. dollars to pay its debt to the IMF, the U.S. can easily get the currency it needs without being beholden to anyone. It can print the dollars, or borrow from the Fed which prints them. But wouldn’t that dilute the value of the currency? No, says Cullen Roche , because swapping dollars for bonds does not change the size of the money supply. A dollar bill and a dollar bond are essentially the same thing. One bears interest and is a little less liquid than the other, but both are obligations good for a dollar’s worth of goods or services in the economy. Dean Baker , co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote recently concerning the federal deficit: There is no reason that the Fed can’t just buy this debt (as it is largely doing) and hold it indefinitely. If the Fed holds the debt, there is no interest burden for future taxpayers. The Fed refunds its interest earnings to the Treasury every year. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion in interest to the Treasury, nearly 40 percent of the country’s net interest burden. And the Fed has other tools to ensure that the expansion of the monetary base required to purchase the debt does not lead to inflation. This means that the country really has no near-term or even mid-term deficit problem. The current deficit is a positive. In fact, if it were larger we would have more jobs and growth. Furthermore, there is no reason that the debt being accumulated at present should pose any interest burden on future generations. In this vein, it is worth noting that Japan’s central bank holds debt amounting to almost 100 percent of that country’s GDP . As a result, Japan’s interest burden is considerably smaller than the United States’s, even though Japan’s debt is almost four times as large relative to the size of its economy. [Emphasis added.] Although Japan’s relative debt is almost four times as large as ours and its central bank holds enough to equal nearly 100% of its GDP, investors are not fleeing the yen or driving the economy into hyperinflation. In fact Japan still can’t pull itself out of deflation , despite massive quantitative easing. The country still has willing trading partners and is still the third largest economy in the world, an impressive feat for a small island. If the Fed were to follow the lead of Japan and hold federal debt equal to the country’s gross domestic product, the Fed would be holding $14.75 trillion in federal securities, enough to refinance the entire U.S. federal debt of $13.8 trillion virtually interest-free. The federal debt hasn’t been paid off since the 1830s under President Andrew Jackson. It is just rolled over from year to year. An interest-free debt rolled over indefinitely is the functional equivalent of the government issuing money itself. Andrew Jackson would have said the government should be issuing the money itself, rather than borrowing from banks that issue it. If Congress gave itself the right under the Constitution to issue money, he said , “it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation.” Indeed, that may be why the U.S. dollar has been going UP since QE2 was initiated, while the Euro has been going down . EU governments are doing what the inflation hawks want them to do: cut back on services, privatize their pension money, and otherwise engage in austerity measures to balance their budgets. The effect has been to depress their economies and throw them deeper and deeper into debt, with nowhere to get the extra cash needed to pay the expanding debt and interest burden. The U.S. and Japan are exploring another model: allowing their currencies to expand to meet the needs of their economies. This was, in fact, the original money system of the American colonists. It was revived by Abraham Lincoln to avoid a crippling war debt, after which it was dubbed the “Greenback solution.”

Read the full article →

Dory Rand: Farm Loan Crisis of 1980s Demonstrates How "Stripdowns" Worked without Working

November 24, 2010

The longer this foreclosure crisis drags on, the clearer it is that voluntary loan modification programs are inadequate to meet the needs of millions of borrowers with homes worth less than the mortgages. A recent commentary published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland shows how an old tool could be used in this new context to help underwater borrowers. The fact that the current modification programs, such as the Home Affordable Modification Program, are voluntary means that homeowners have little power to force reluctant mortgage loan servicers to the bargaining table. While several “judicial foreclosure” jurisdictions (where foreclosures must be approved by a judge) are implementing mandatory or voluntary court-supervised mediation programs that bring homeowners and servicers to the table, such programs are too few to address the nationwide problem of ongoing foreclosures. Continuing to rely exclusively on voluntary modifications and expect a different result would be irrational and irresponsible. There are other options proven to be more effective at keeping people in their homes, such as allowing judges to modify mortgage loans on primary residences through the bankruptcy process. Under this option, bankruptcy judges would reduce the balance of the mortgage loan to the current market value of the home and turn the remaining balance into an unsecured claim that would be treated the same as other unsecured debts in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Almost any kind of secured loan, including mortgages on rental properties and vacation homes, can be modified through bankruptcy under current law-except loans for primary residences. When this exclusion was established, housing represented a borrower’s most stable investment. With home values on the decline, a home mortgage now represents many borrowers’ most volatile investment. When Illinois Senator Dick Durbin proposed the idea of judicial modification for primary residences ( S. 61 ) in 2009, it was shot down by the financial industry as a bankruptcy “cramdown.” Opponents argued that allowing judicial modification would create a “moral hazard” by allowing debtors to get out their debts and discouraging other borrowers who could afford to pay from keeping current on their payments, lead to higher mortgage interest rates/reduce the availability of credit, prompt an avalanche of bankruptcy petitions, and/or give judges too much power. The Cleveland Fed piece is fascinating because it documents how the same objections were raised in opposition to judicial modification of family farm loans (the process was then called “stripdown”) during the agricultural lending crisis of the 1980′s, and how none of the feared results came to pass after Congress allowed farm mortgage stripdowns by creating a new Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to the authors, “the actual negative impact of the farm stripdown legislation was minor.” Furthermore, “what was most interesting about Chapter 12 is that it worked without working… [I]nstead of flooding bankruptcy courts, Chapter 12 drove the parties to make private loan modifications. In fact, although the General Accounting Office reports that more than 30,000 bankruptcies were expected the year Chapter 12 went into effect, only 8,500 were filed in the first two years.” The Chapter 12 reforms have been on the books for more than two decades now. While the authors note that there are some important differences between the agricultural foreclosure crisis of the 1980′s and the current home foreclosure crisis, we can learn some lessons from the earlier crisis. The authors concluded that “the effects of the stripdown provision… on the availability and terms of agricultural credit suggest that there has been little if any economically significant impact on the cost and availability of that credit.” Now that we understand how allowing judicial modification of mortgages on primary residences through bankruptcy would likely result in most parties negotiating private modifications without causing other significant adverse consequences, it’s time for our policymakers to allow use of this proven tool to help stop the current tsunami of foreclosures.

Read the full article →

Fed Officials Clashed Over Massive $600 Billion Program

November 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve policymakers clashed over the benefits and risks of launching a $600 billion program to rejuvenate the economy, but voted for it anyway, according to minutes of their closed-door deliberations released Tuesday. Despite a near unanimous 10-1 vote in support of the program, the minutes from the Nov. 2-3 meeting show that some Fed officials had concerns about embarking on a second round of stimulus. The minutes also reveal that the Fed held an unusual videoconferenced meeting Oct. 15 to discuss its communications strategy. At that previously unknown meeting, officials considered whether it might be useful for the Fed chief to hold occasional press briefings to provide more detailed information and insights into the Fed’s thinking. No decision was made. The Fed also discussed at the October meeting whether to adopt an explicit inflation target but decided against it. Inflation has been running below the Fed’s comfort zone of between 1.5 percent and 2 percent. That spurred some concern of deflation – a prolonged and dangerous drop in prices, wages and in the values of assets like homes or stocks. In discussing the bond-purchase program Nov. 3, some officials said they thought the additional purchases would have only limited effect in revving up the economy. The Fed’s Treasury bond-buying program is intended to invigorate the economy in part by lowering interest rates, lifting stock prices and encouraging more spending. Some also worried about risks – unleashing inflation or causing a destabilizing slide in the value of the U.S. dollar. In the end, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke persuaded all but one of his colleagues to back the plan. Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, was the sole dissenter. Explaining the need for more stimulus, the Fed said that progress on its key dual mission of maximizing employment and making sure prices are on an even keel had been “disappointingly slow.” In fact, the Fed downgraded its forecasts for this year and next. Fed officials said that economic growth would be weaker and unemployment higher than previously estimated in June. Fed officials also discussed at the October meeting pumping billions into the economy by targeting a rate for a specific government security. The Fed would then buy bonds to lower the rate on that security to the Fed’s target. Doing so, would be aimed at bolstering the economy. The Fed, however, didn’t go that route. Instead, the Fed decided to buy $600 billion worth of Treasury bonds over eight months. That decisions has provoked a barrage of criticism at home and abroad. Republican economists and lawmakers have criticized the move, saying it could lead to runaway inflation. Some of them also complain that the Fed is printing money to pay for Uncle Sam’s bloated debt. On the international front, China, Brazil, Germany and other countries are irked by the move, complaining that is a scheme to further drive down the value of the U.S. dollar, giving U.S. exporters a competitive advantage over their foreign rivals. The Fed has said it will regularly review the bond-buying program and has left the door open to scaling it back if the economy performs better than expected. It could also buy more bonds if the economy weakens.

Read the full article →

Video: Plosser Sees U.S. Jobless Rate Near 8% by End of 2012: Video

November 19, 2010

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser spoke with Bloomberg’s Sara Eisen in Washington yesterday about the outlook for U.S. employment and the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Plosser Sees U.S. Jobless Rate Near 8% by End of 2012: Video

November 19, 2010

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser spoke with Bloomberg’s Sara Eisen in Washington yesterday about the outlook for U.S. employment and the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Lawrence G. McDonald: 3 Reasons Why the Fed Might Be Done

November 6, 2010

QE2, QE3, and QE4? Not so fast. The official FOMC announcement of QE2 has already been greeted by new speculation on the possibility of additional quantitative easing measure. This has raised concerns across the ideological spectrum. Key questions for investors are: o Are financial markets putting the cart before the horse given the limits of QE2′s impact and the lack of underlying consensus within the FOMC? o When will markets begin to digest the possibility of negative fallout from QE2? · The FOMC statement again noted the importance of carefully monitoring and responding to economic performance in the weeks ahead, stating “The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability.” · QE proponents read this comment as opening the door to QE3 and beyond. Opponents, or those concerned with the Fed’s choice, can just as easily read this statement as the FOMC taking a measured approach to implementing QE2, particularly if commodity prices continue to rise and payroll numbers move beyond those necessary to maintain stable employment (today’s announcement was better than expected). · According to www.DCTripwire.com , former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker said while speaking in Singapore on November 2, before the FOMC announcement, the Fed’s debt buying in itself isn’t a concern as the U.S. jobless rate, 9.6 percent in September, has little chance of going down soon and the nation’s economic problems can’t all be cured in the short run. Mr. Volcker also noted that monetary policy in the US is close to the limits of what it can do and that if money is “too easy” for “too long,” asset bubbles are a distinct possibility. This should be sobering news, since the U.S. economy has not yet fully recovered from the bursting of the housing bubble. · Another critical perspective comes from Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that the flood of liquidity from QE and now QE2, is adding to foreign-exchange instability. Expect the issue of “hot money” and instability abroad to receive increasing attention. Stiglitz also points out that the small and medium-size businesses that are being starved of credit are unlikely to benefit from QE2, particularly as a number of the community banks who typically lend to these types of businesses remain on the FDIC problem bank list. · Chairman Bernanke’s unusual Washington Post opinion piece included a subtle call for action on the part of other policymakers as well, making clear that the Federal Reserve cannot solve economic problems on its own. Bernanke cited the need for the combined efforts of many parties, including the central bank, Congress, the administration, regulators and the private sector. While Chairman Bernanke has long been loath to adopt the more aggressive posture of former Chairman Greenspan, that may change as the Federal Reserve continues to face criticism over its efforts and if the Fed determines that low economic growth and high unemployment are unable to be fully solved through Fed action. What to Watch in the Weeks Ahead · Backlash from Overseas: The G-20 Summit in Seoul on November 11-12 will provide a forum for major world economic powers to express their views on the FOMC’s QE2 strategy, as well as Secretary Geithner’s proposal to establish a new accord on current account imbalances. · QE2′s effect on the U.S. dollar and the release of FOMC Minutes on November 24: More details on the internal debate during the November 2-3 FOMC meeting will provide a better sense of the degree of unity behind the QE2 announcement. While the vote drew only one dissenter (Hoenig), a nearly unanimous FOMC vote may disguise more unease amongst the members. That unease may grow as economic data comes in over the weeks ahead and international reaction continues. · FOMC Meeting December 19: This will be the final meeting of the FOMC with its current membership. As we have previously noted, the Federal Reserve Bank presidents (Fischer of Dallas, Plosser of Philadelphia, and Kocherlakota of Minneapolis) joining the Committee in January 2011 may bring more dissenting views. Maintaining the appearance of consensus on the FOMC will likely get trickier, which could undermine efforts to implement QE2 fully, let alone further QE measures. For more updates on Federal Reserve policy, go to my website www.lawrencegmcdonald.com

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Gobs of New Jobs, but Gobs of Questions

November 6, 2010

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the stock market Friday that mystified many an investor. Maybe you, too. In the face of an early morning positive disclosure of a surprisingly strong October employment report, namely the creation of 151,000 jobs, more than double the general expectation, the market acted like it had been hit by a bulldozer. Stocks should have soared on that kind of news — a credible sign that the jobs market was finally rebounding. Instead, they snored as the Dow, frequently in negative territory, rose a mere 9 points on the day, What alarmed some market watchers was that the jobs news came on the heels of happy tidings for Wall Street earlier in the week that drove up the Dow nearly 220 points on Thursday. So the market was clearly set to run higher on the jobs news. Those earlier stock-boosting tidings: — Strong G.O.P. gains in the mid-term elections, a repudiation of Obama’s policies, which, in turn, flashed a signal that maybe one of the elephant herd now has a legitimate shot at relocating to the White House in 2012. — A $600 billion economic-boosting QE2 (quantative easing) package from the Federal Reserve. So why a disappointing Friday? Aside from Thursday’s big gain which trumped the employment news, add some doubts about the potency of both the jobs report and QE2. Peter Morici, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, doesn’t mince any words as he raises questions about both. “We’re not over the hump,” he says. “We’re on a plateau. Yes, we’re creating jobs, but not enough to materially improve the economy.” As for QE2, Morici doesn’t give it a passing grade, “It won’t lower interest rates or fire up the depressed housing market,” he says. “Maybe we’ll see a temporary benefit, say a 5% rise in stock prices.” As for economic growth, here again, a bum grade from our professor. He sees mediocre 2.6% GDP growth in the current quarter, and less, 2.4%, for all of 2011. At best, he says, “we’ll slog along at a mediocre pace.” In a commentary to clients Friday, David Rosenberg, the well-regarded chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Scheff & Associates, a leading Canadian wealth management firm, raised a number of questions about the overall vigor of the jobs report, noting it was not universally strong. For example, he notes the Household Survey in the report (which includes agricultural employees and self employed) showed a decline of 330,000 jobs. This survey, he also points out, served up evidence that the problem of excess labor supply has not gone away. Moreover, a barometer that many labor experts regard as the most accurate indicator of the health of the jobs market turned in a poor showing. That is the employment-to-population rate — the share of the population that is working — which fell to 58.3 from 58.5%, a 10-month low. Further, he observes, many industries still reported job declines last month, including manufacturing, commercial and residential construction, transportation, information, financial and government. As for QE2, Rosenberg says we may have well seen the last of QE. Why? Because in 2011, he notes, there will be three new voting Federal Reserve bank presidents who vocally oppose more easing initiatives, Relating his thinking to the market, Rosenberg says it’s difficult to see how equities can rally on the Fed move alone, or on the election results for that matter, seeing as both a G.O.P. victory in the House and QE2 had been widely discounted in recent months. Madeline Schnapp, economics skipper at West Coast liquidity tracker TrimTabs Research, partially owned by Goldman Sachs, also raises some questions about QE2. It may stimulate economic activity short term, she says, but it has negative long-term consequences, notably higher inflation and higher interest rates. She also cites a couple of other economic risks, namely the threat of higher taxes from expiring tax cuts and the end-of-the-month expiration of extended and emergency unemployment benefits affecting 6.2 million current enrollees. Without an extension, she points out, by the time all those enrollees fall off the unemployment insurance bandwagon, it may yank $59-$60 billion out of the unemployed pocketbooks, a potentially big negative on consumption. Given his admitted “shellacking” in the recent elections, President Obama has made it clear he’s open to a negotiating process with the Republicans. Could that open the door to more getting done in Washington? Schnapp has her doubts, noting the problem is you have a new ball game in the House next year with a decidedly left group of Democrats sitting across from a new crop of decidedly right Republicans. “Seems like a recipe of gridlock to me,” she says. I hear similar talk from Hong Kong trader Selwyn Ortz who attributes at least part of Friday’s listless market showing to what he believes is “common sense recognition that it will be gridlock and more gridlock in Washington over the next two years, with little if anything of a concrete nature getting done to create more jobs and invigorate the economy.” That means, Ortz believes, that headway in remedying the two biggest economic headaches — jobs and housing — will likely be disappointing. That’s also the thinking of Mideast trader Caise Hassan, who manages family money and is up 110% this year. A HuffPost reader in Amman, Jordan, Chicago-born Hassan tells me: “I don’t hear any great ideas from the Republicans. Maybe they’ll push big tax breaks for companies and lighten up on their criticism of Bernanke’s money printing. But what’s really needed,” he says, “is something that can benefit poor and middle America and neither party is providing that.” As far as the economic recovery goes, Hassan is somewhat skeptical, noting “I see no catalysts for job growth, no legislative catalysts and not enough being done to stimulate growth and demand.” Further, he sees mediocre economic progress for the U.S. in 2011, observing “every time it takes two steps forward, it seems to take one step back,” His view of Congress’ progress over the next two years: “I don’t think it will achieve anything.” Still, he thinks the stock market is likely is likely to trend higher over the next few months, reflecting good relative strength, solid earnings growth, an overvalued bond market, very low interest rates, the advent of QE2 and strengthening global markets. It’s worth noting that Hassan, in conversations I’ve had with him in recent months, shows he’s a brainy guy when it comes to the investment arena. He has made a number of excellent calls on the direction of the market, as well as on some solid specific investment recommendations. Chief among his current favorites are selected stocks and some commodities, which both recently climbed to a two-year high following the QE2 announcement. On the equities side, Hassan favors Joy Global, Apple, Amazon and Sina Corp., a Chinese internet company. In commodities, he likes cocoa, sugar and rice. He says he would avoid gold and silver for the next few months, believing that both are currently overbought. Interestingly, he’s short oil, currently a strong performing commodity that he notes usually declines at the end of the year. What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com .

Read the full article →

Bailout Oversight Panel Slams Obama Administration Over Foreclosure Crisis

October 27, 2010

WASHINGTON — A key government panel keeping tabs on the bailout strongly criticized the Obama administration Wednesday for its apparent failure on a variety of housing-related fronts, from its ineffective foreclosure-prevention initiatives to its refusal to acknowledge the growing crisis sparked by widespread evidence that mortgage companies frequently take their customers’ homes via fraud. Faced with increasingly heated criticism from the Congressional Oversight Panel, the administration’s representative — the Treasury Department’s housing rescue chief, Phyllis Caldwell — hunkered down, refusing to answer basic questions. It was a familiar scene. As the housing market continues to flirt with the risk of falling into a double dip — prices are already heading downward, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency forecasts prices to return to their June 30, 2010 level in the fourth quarter of 2013 — the Obama administration continues to face assaults on its attempts to fix the crisis threatening Americans’ most valuable asset. Some independent experts, while critical overall, praise the administration for its role in spacing out the negative shocks from the record home repossessions taking place, lessening the chances of the economy suffering a fatal blow. Others say the administration’s efforts have simply prolonged the crisis and delayed the recovery. Either way, the consensus is that the administration hasn’t pursued the right policies to jumpstart the recovery. During Wednesday’s hearing, members of the Congressional Oversight Panel said Treasury’s foreclosure-prevention programs “failed to provide meaningful relief,” generated “false expectations,” and have been a “major disappointment.” COP is an independent, nonpartisan commission created by Congress. More than 20 months after President Barack Obama announced a plan to “enable as many as three to four million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure,” just 640,300 homeowners remain in the program. Nearly 729,000 struggling homeowners have been kicked out. “We are faced with a choice here,” said Damon Silvers, a member of the panel who also works as director of policy and special counsel at the AFL-CIO. “We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can’t do both.” The commissioners were just as critical when it came to assessing Treasury’s response to the growing crisis emanating from mortgage companies’ use of fraudulent paperwork to foreclose on homeowners. That consequences of that, though, may pale in comparison to the risk faced by the nation’s biggest banks when it comes to demands for them to buy back the faulty home mortgages that they bundled and sold to investors as securities. Estimates from Wall Street analysts range well into the hundreds of billions of dollars. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is part of a group of investors that sent a letter demanding Bank of America buy back some $47 billion in dodgy mortgages. The New York Fed owns the mortgage debt as a result of its 2008 bailout of Bear Stearns, the fallen global investment bank. The administration and financial regulators are conducting a review, though it’s unclear how comprehensive it is or how many people have been devoted to it. Administration officials say that thus far “there is no evidence of systemic risk.” Not taking that for an answer, Silvers bore into Caldwell. “I’m concerned about Treasury making representations categorically that you don’t see a systemic risk,” Silvers told Treasury’s chief homeownership officer. “And let me walk you through exactly why.” “That letter asks for $47 billion of mortgages — of mortgage- backed securities to be repurchased at par,” Silvers went on. “Do you know what those mortgages are currently carried at … the market value of those bonds today?” Caldwell declined to comment. Silvers continued: “OK, fine. Let me tell you what the Fed says they’re worth. The Fed tells us they’re worth 50 cents on the dollar. So if the Fed’s request to Bank of America is honored, right, Bank of America, assuming they are carrying these bonds, assuming when they buy them back they mark them to market, Bank of America will take a $23 billion loss. “The Federal Reserve further informs us that there is nothing particularly unique about that particular set of mortgage-backed securities — meaning they have not been chosen…because they’re particularly bad. They believe they are of a common quality with the rest of Bank of America’s underwritten mortgage-backed securities. There are $2 trillion [worth] of Bank of America’s underwritten mortgage-backed securities. “Five such deals — five such requests, if honored to Bank of America…will amount to more than the current market capitalization of Bank of America, which is $115 billion. “Now do you wish to retract your statement that there is no systemic risk in this situation? And the word is ‘risk’ — not ‘certainty’ — but ‘risk’? And I would urge you to do so, because these things can be embarrassing later.” Caldwell repeated her earlier claim that it was still early in the review. She added that Treasury is working “very closely” with “11 regulatory and federal agencies,” and that the administration is “watching this every day. “And that at this stage there appears to be no evidence of a systemic risk — but again it is early and it is something we are monitoring daily,” Caldwell said. Silvers questioned her again. “Let me suggest to you that the ‘it is still early’ is a perfectly acceptable position. … Is it your position that Bank of America honoring five of these things would not present a systemic risk? … Is Bank of America not systemically significant?” Caldwell responded that she and Treasury “didn’t say there was no risk. We said there didn’t appear to be evidence of a major systemic risk.” “I hope that … if the Treasury comes back to us and is discussing whether or not we need to deploy further public funds to rescue Bank of America, or such other institutions as might be affected by these events, that we get a similar kind of indifference to their fate after it’s too late,” Silvers shot back. “Because it strikes me that in light of the mathematics I’ve gone through with you, it is not a plausible position that there is no systemic risk here.” Silvers is a Democrat, but the panel’s concerns were bipartisan. Republican panelist J. Mark McWatters, a high-powered corporate tax lawyer and CPA, similarly peppered Caldwell with questions. After asking whether “Treasury [was] concerned that any of the large, too-big-to-fail financial institutions may experience a solvency or liquidity or capital crisis over the next few years” due to investor demands that it buy back faulty mortgages, and being told that Treasury had to find evidence of “systemic risk,” McWatters continued to press Caldwell. Citing the roughly $2.3 trillion of non-government-backed mortgage securities held by investors at the height of the housing bubble, McWatters said that “even if a relatively small percentage of those are put back and the banks have to buy them back at face [value], this could be a substantial problem. “Also, considering that this is not just a one-shot deal. I mean, when a mortgage is originated and put in a [mortgage-backed security], it may be multiplied through synthetic CDOs. So you may have the synthetic CDO problems also going back to the banks,” he added. CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations, are securities based on the value of other securities, like home mortgage bonds. Synthetic CDOs are essentially side bets on those securities. “So, I mean, it sounds like Treasury as of today has not done even a back-of-the-envelope sketch as to what the potential put-back rights could be to the TARP financial institutions,” McWatters said, referring to the risk big banks face from investors forcing them to buy back dicey mortgages. Caldwell repeated that Treasury is “monitoring this situation daily.” She declined to offer specifics, though at one point she did say that the administration was “monitoring litigation risk.” Despite the many questions, and various hypothetical scenarios, Caldwell declined to give any more details on the foreclosure paperwork crisis than had already been disclosed by other members of the administration. The panel was forced to make due with open questions and a lack of details on what, exactly, the administration was looking at, how hard it was looking, and whether they are considering or planning for worst-case scenarios. McWatters likely summed up the feelings of the entire panel when he said, “It’s a little bit frightening.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the 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 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Top Fed Official On Government’s Foreclosure Prevention Efforts: ‘Three Years Of Failed Policies’

October 25, 2010

One of the Federal Reserve’s top economists denounced the Obama administration’s approach to stemming the growing foreclosure crisis, saying it’s part of “three years of failed policies” intended to help homeowners avoid losing their homes. “We can’t prevent millions of foreclosures using the tools people are currently using,” Paul S. Willen, a senior economist and policy adviser in the research department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said Monday during a mortgage and housing finance conference held at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in Arlington, Va. Those tools — government programs that did little to change the fundamental incentives driving mortgage companies, lenders and investors — have been “the roadmap for three years of failed policies,” said Willen, an expert in household finances and home mortgages. “The lenders foreclosed on borrowers because it’s in their financial interest to do it. Modification is an expensive and ineffective medicine,” he added. To the experts in the audience, Willen’s statements did not come as a surprise. The Obama administration designed a $75 billion program to ease the pain of the housing crisis by promising to pay mortgage companies, mortgage owners and the homeowners themselves if they successfully modified the terms of a delinquent borrower’s mortgage. The Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) is the biggest part of that plan. Obama promised in February 2009 that the program would help three to four million homeowners. Rather than allowing millions of homeowners to lose their homes, the administration tried to stem the rising tide of foreclosures by getting mortgage companies to lower borrowers’ monthly payments. If borrowers have a more manageable payment obligation, the logic goes, they’re more likely to stay current, or become current, because the mortgage is no longer seen as unattainable. But it hasn’t worked. Many have called it a “failure.” Obama’s foreclosure plan has been widely panned by industry experts. If anything, it’s likely to prolong the pain by stretching out the housing crisis, they say. And for most homeowners, it’s made things worse. More homeowners have been kicked out of HAMP than have benefited from lower monthly payments. The vast majority of these homeowners now owe more on their home than when they signed up for Obama’s plan, because of the fees and surcharges that have been rolled into the mortgage. For those who successfully navigated HAMP and ended up with five years of promised lower monthly payments, they, too, now typically owe more on their mortgage than they did before. In fact, the typical homeowner in HAMP is “underwater,” meaning they owe more than their home is worth, and were pushed further underwater by HAMP. Homeowners who are underwater are far more likely to default on their mortgage than other homeowners, academic and government research shows. By stretching out the crisis, hoping all the while it will self correct, many have termed Obama’s plan a giant ” extend and pretend ” scheme, in which the administration extends the time line to achieve success. Willen said that calling on mortgage companies to voluntarily modify mortgages would not even make a “modest dent” in the foreclosure crisis. He did, though, offer a different solution: “To prevent foreclosures we must pay lenders or borrowers a lot of money or force lenders to modify loans even when they don’t want to,” the Fed researcher said. “The idea we can go forward and all we need to do is tweak things a little or change a rule here or there or even change a lot of rules and give some incentive payments — that is not enough. “If we want to prevent foreclosures, and that is a…political consideration, not really an economic consideration, then we know how to do it. In essence what I’m trained to say is we know how to prevent foreclosures. We just need to be prepared to spend the money and to decide who we think needs that money and who we think deserves help rather than trying to come up with some way we can do something for free [that] helps all of the right people and punishes all the wrong people.” If the administration chooses instead to pursue what many believe to be the only viable solution — widespread mortgage principal writedowns — then policymakers had better be ready to restructure the nation’s largest financial institutions, said Adam J. Levitin, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who’s served as special counsel to the Congressional Oversight Panel, a watchdog created to keep tabs on the bailout. Making the nation’s biggest banks forgive mortgage principal would force them to recognize losses. The losses would be so enormous that the government would likely have to step in and take over the lenders. “Whether we have the courage as a country to bite that bullet, I don’t know,” Levitin added. ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the 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 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Taxpayer Investment Watch: AIG, Mortgage Bond Program Showing Positive Signs

October 22, 2010

In two tentative signs of hope that taxpayers will be repaid for the financial sector bailout, AIG used share sales to free up billions, and government investments in risky mortgage securities returned 36 percent. The news is good, just so long as it keeps moving in that direction. AIG, the insurance giant that received a roughly $130 billion government bailout (with the ability to use up to $182.3 billion), raised $17.8 billion from selling shares in its Hong Kong insurance unit, Bloomberg reports, noting that the sale was the biggest stock offering in Hong Kong history. As part of its recently hatched plan to repay taxpayers , AIG’s first task is to repay the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The sale of this Asian insurance unit, AIA, will go toward that roughly $19.3 billion debt to the Fed. Earlier this month, Treasury’s chief restructuring officer Jim Millstein told the New York Times he expected the AIA sale to bring in between $12 and $15 billion. But a lot still has to go right for taxpayers to be made whole. Reuters ‘ Felix Salmon has quibbled with NYT ‘s Andrew Ross Sorkin over the likelihood of taxpayers earning a profit. To achieve success, AIG and the government must smoothly execute a massive stock conversion and gradual stock sale, the success of which is dependent on AIG’s stock price. Another government investment, controlled by the so-called Public-Private Investment Program, which was created last year to buy risky mortgage securities, has returned 36 percent during its first year, Bloomberg says. On its face, that’s not half bad, especially considering it’s close to the returns of the giant hedge fund Bridgewater Associates. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Bridgewater, which manages $86 billion, saw its flagship fund rise 38 percent in 2010. But Jeffrey Phlegar, who runs one of the PPIP funds, gave a caveat. “Returns are not a function of better fundamental data,” he told Bloomberg . Instead, they’re a function of the behavior of investors in the bond market. And that 36 percent figure, Bloomberg notes, is only on $18.6 billion, less than a fourth of Bridgewater’s capital.

Read the full article →

BofA Loan Repurchases: Pimco, New York Fed Want Bank To Buy Back Bad Mortgages

October 19, 2010

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) — Pacific Investment Management Co., BlackRock Inc. and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are seeking to force Bank of America Corp. to repurchase soured mortgages packaged into $47 billion of bonds by its Countrywide Financial Corp. unit, people familiar with the matter said.

Read the full article →

Fed Leans Toward Two-Step Plan To Boost Economy

October 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve is leaning toward taking two steps to boost the economy: Buying more Treasury bonds to drive down loan rates, and signaling an openness to higher prices later to encourage more spending now. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues appeared to be nearing consensus on those ideas at their September 21 meeting, according to minutes of the closed-door deliberations that were released Tuesday. Economists predict Fed officials will approve the bond purchase program at their Nov. 2-3 meeting. Fed policymakers also spoke at their last meeting about setting a higher inflation target, hoping that would get people to spend more money in short run. The minutes showed the Fed was concerned that the economy was growing slower than they had expected. While Fed officials didn’t see the economy slipping back into a recession, they worried it had become vulnerable to “potential negative shocks.” They expressed concerns that unemployment, which has been at 9.6 percent for the past months, would stay elevated. Fed officials said they were prepared to provide additional relief “before long,” according to the minutes. Economists and investors took that as a sign that they are ready to act. “The Fed is close to introducing a second round” of stimulus, Paul Ashworth, economist at Capital Economics, said the minutes showed. Wall Street has been eagerly awaiting the Fed’s decision to purchase government debt, known officially as quantitative easing. The Fed minutes signaled that move is near and lifted all major indexes. Fed policymakers didn’t settle on how big the debt purchase should be or how to structure the program. Such details are what they are wrestling with as their prepare for the November meeting. The Fed’s purchase aims to drive down interest rates on mortgages, corporate debt and other loans. It hopes that this will spur Americans to boost spending, which would strengthen the economy and ultimately chip away at the stubbornly high unemployment rate. Public remarks by Fed officials since the September 21 meeting suggest the program will be smaller than the $1.7 trillion one it launched during the recession. Under that program, the Fed purchased a mix of mortgage securities and government debt. The effort was credited with forcing down mortgages rates and providing support to the weakened housing market. Two Fed officials in recent remarks have suggested the new purchases shouldn’t exceed $500 billion. At the September meeting, some Fed officials thought the economic benefit of the debt purchases could be “small.” A smaller program isn’t expected to lower rates as much as the Fed’s crisis-era program did, economists say. Moreover, there’s concern that even cheaper loans will fail to get people and companies to ramp up their spending. Thus far, they haven’t been confident enough in the economy or their own financial prospects to do so. Bernanke said last week that another round of securities purchases would likely help the economy. So far, five of the Fed’s 11 voting members, including Bernanke, are leaning toward additional aid or are at least open to it. Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, whose duties include building support for Bernanke’s position, is likely to vote with the Fed chief. Fed Governors Kevin Warsh, Elizabeth Duke, Daniel Tarullo and Sarah Bloom Raskin also are likely to back Bernanke. Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, however, has dissented from the Fed’s decisions all year and is likely to oppose additional aid. Speaking Tuesday in Denver, Hoenig said he isn’t confident more debt purchases “will work in the real world.” William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has estimated that a $500 billion program would provide the same amount of stimulus as a half-point or three-quarter point reduction to the Fed’s main interest rate. That rate is already near zero and can’t be cut further. That’s why the Fed is weighing buying more government debt. Another option to help the economy also was discussed extensively at the September meeting, according to the minutes. That deals with the Fed trying to raise people’s expectations of where they think inflation is heading in the months ahead. If the Fed were to communicate that it will tolerate a higher-than-normal rate of inflation, that could make companies feel more inclined to nudge up their prices. Shoppers – thinking prices would be rising even further down the road – would be more inclined to make purchases sooner. That would lift inflation, which is now running at very low levels. Such a move would push “real” or inflation-adjusted interest rates, down, which could spur more spending. Fed officials at the September meeting noted that there are different ways it could try to influence people’s expectations of inflation. One way was to include information in the minutes of the Fed meetings to try to shape people’s expectations about inflation. It’s a controversial idea that Bernanke called “inappropriate” in August, given the country’s current economic circumstances. However, at the time he said such a step “might make sense” if the country were mired in a situation of prolonged deflation that weakened the public’s confidence. According to the Fed minutes, officials “saw only small odds of deflation.” Deflation is a widespread drop in prices, wages and the values of stocks and homes.

Read the full article →

Ben Bernanke: More Asset Purchases Could Help Economy

October 5, 2010

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday that the economy could be helped by another round of asset purchases by the central bank. Bernanke’s comment reinforces analysts’ beliefs that the Fed is likely to take action at its next meeting Nov. 2-3. The Fed is considering launching a new program to buy government debt, a move aimed at driving down rates on mortgages, corporate loans and other debt. It’s wrestling with how much it should buy. “I do think the additional purchases – although we don’t have the precise numbers for how big the effects are – I do think they have the ability to ease financial conditions,” Bernanke said during a town-hall style meeting here with college students. During the recession, the Fed ended up buying a total of roughly $1.7 trillion of mortgage securities and debt, as well as government bonds. Bernanke called that “an effective program.” At its Sept. 21 meeting, the Fed signaled that it stands ready to take additional action if the recovery weakens. Bernanke and other Fed officials have suggested that the Fed’s next likely step to help the economy is buying more government debt. The goal: get Americans to boost their spending, which would strengthen the economy and make businesses more inclined to increase hiring. An idea gaining favor is for the Fed to start with a modest amount – perhaps $100 billion or less – and then decide on a meeting-by-meeting basis how much, if any, additional debt should be purchased. Brian Sack, executive vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said in a speech Monday that he also sees a benefit in another round of asset purchases. “The evidence suggests that the expansion of the securities portfolio to date has helped to foster more accommodative financial conditions, and further expansion would likely provide additional accommodation,” he said.

Read the full article →

Andrew Sum: Is Rising Structural Unemployment a Problem?

October 1, 2010

In recent months, a number of national economic analysts have referred to the persistence of high unemployment rates as the “new normal,” and some, including Narayana Kocherlakota, a regional Federal Reserve Bank President, have blamed rising structural unemployment as a source of the problem. This supposed rise in structural unemployment results from a mismatch between the skills required for available job openings and skills of unemployed workers. Yet very little substantive evidence has been offered in support of this hypothesis. The total number of job vacancies in the U.S. has been increasing modestly, in recent months, rising above 3 million in July. This still represents a vacancy rate of only slightly above 2% versus the massively greater number of unemployed, underemployed, and mal-employed workers (over 40 million). Knowledge of where those job vacancies are, their occupational/skill requirements, their durations, and reasons for remaining unfilled are critical to a proper interpretation of what is going on in the labor market. Unfortunately, available national job vacancy data do not provide any substantial answers to these important policy questions. However, several states including Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota do collect detailed information on existing vacancies. In the most recent vacancy surveys, between 32 and 45 percent of job vacancies in five states providing such data were part-time. In these states, there were approximately 8 unemployed workers seeking full-time jobs for every full-time job opening. Another issue that is critical to the validity of the mismatch hypothesis is evidence on the occupational characteristics of available job openings and their education/experience requirements. Skill mismatches imply the existence of a large pool of vacancies in high skill occupations (engineers, scientists, doctors, systems analysts, high level managers) with either above average formal educational requirements or long training durations that can lead to lags in producing a new set of qualified entrants. The available evidence from five states (Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington) on the educational requirements of job vacancies indicates that only 36% of the available job vacancies require the applicants to possess an Associate’s or higher degree. Applying this ratio nationally would yield just about 1 million job vacancies requiring an Associate’s or higher degree in June of this year. At that time there were 5.2 million unemployed U.S. workers with some years of college or an Associate’s or higher academic degree. When we add in mal-employed college graduates working in jobs that do not require a college degree, there were 17 million unemployed or mal-employed college graduates for these 1 million job vacancies. If skill mismatches were a serious problem in U.S. labor markets, then one would expect to find that many job openings were remaining vacant for a fairly long period of time. However, data on the durations of existing job vacancies available from three states reveal that the overwhelming share of job vacancies are very short-term in duration. Between 80 and 90 percent of the job vacancies in these three states were open for two months or less, with the vast majority of them (70%) open for less than 30 days. There are very few job vacancies that were open for more than two months (15%). The six month definition of long-term is that used by labor economists and the BLS in defining long-term unemployment. If we compare the estimated number of long-term unemployed in the U.S. in recent months (6.5 million) with the estimated number of long-term job vacancies, the ratio is 43-1. There is another approach to measuring whether labor markets are providing adequate job opportunities and experiencing serious mismatch problems. Ask the public. Repeatedly, over the first six months of this year, national public opinion polls have found an extraordinarily high degree of pessimism about the performance of the national economy and the state of U.S. or local labor markets. In a June 2010 ABC poll, 88% of the respondents rated the overall state of the U.S. economy as “not so good/poor”. Only 12% classified the economy as being in an excellent or good situation. Despite the official view announced in September by the National Bureau of Economic Research that the national recession ended sometime in June 2009, a May 2010 NBC /Wall Street Journal poll found that 76% of the public believed that the nation was still in a recession a year later. A March 2010 Pew Research Center poll on the public’s perception of job opportunities in their local home area revealed that 85% reported that “jobs are difficult to find” while only 10% though that there were plenty of jobs available. The 85% response was the highest since the national recession started at the outset of 2008. In a 2010 Pew Research Center poll, 28% of adults claimed that they had their hours reduced during the recession, 11% said they were forced to switch to a part-time job, and 23% reported a pay cut. All of these findings combined do not reveal anything close to a labor market experiencing a mismatch problem. Today, there are five official unemployed persons per every job vacancy in the nation, about 8 full-time unemployed per full-time vacancy, 10 unemployed or underemployed persons per every job vacancy, and 14 unemployed, underemployed, and mal-employed persons per job vacancy. The current degree of surplus is also likely the worst in the entire post-World War II era. In his classic 1944 text, Full Employment in A Free Society , the late William Beveridge of Great Britain noted that full employment of labor existed when “there were more available jobs than men. Jobs should wait not men.” How far removed we are from that situation today. To be worried about structural unemployment or labor mismatches with the massive degree of labor surplus currently prevailing in U.S. labor markets is not only intellectually dishonest but detracts from the more immediate need for active and comprehensive job creation efforts across the country to put the unemployed and underemployed back to work. The only labor shortage that exists today is “Honest Abes” in national economic reporting. Andrew Sum a Professor Economics and the Director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University.

Read the full article →

Fed Officials Clash Over How To Fix The Economy

September 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — Divisions within the Federal Reserve over how to pump up the economy and lower unemployment came into sharper view Wednesday. Three Fed officials squared off in competing speeches over how much help would come from one likely next step – buying more government debt. Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, argued that such an effort may not help the economy much. Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, made a similar point. But, Eric Rosengren, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said Fed policymakers must do what they can to bring some more relief. The Fed delivered a strong signal last week at its meeting that it was prepared to act if the economy weakened. High on the list of unconventional tools is buying more government debt, known as quantitative easing. The goal is to force down rates on consumer and businesses loans even more to get Americans to boost their spending. Doing so, would help the economy. In their speeches, Kocherlakota and Plosser expressed skepticism that quantitative easing would drive down rates nearly as much as such efforts did during the recession and financial crisis. Because financial markets are in better shape now than during the crisis, the difference between the rates on super-safe Treasury securities and rates on other consumer and business loans has narrowed. “I suspect that it will be somewhat more challenging for the Fed to impact them,” Kocherlakota said. A new debt-buying program “would have a more muted effect,” he concluded. Plosser said: “Monetary policy is not a magic elixir that can solve every economic ill.” However, Rosengren said buying more government debt could benefit the economy, and therefore should be considered. “It is important that policymakers be open to implementing policies” that are aimed at lowering unemployment and preventing inflation from getting too low, which could put the country at risk of deflation, he said in a speech in New York. Many economists believe the Fed is likely to announce action when it wraps up a two-day meeting on Nov. 3, the day after the congressional midterm elections. Although the Fed has yet to coalesce around a specific plan, one idea put forward by James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, is gaining closer scrutiny. Under Bullard’s approach, the Fed would initially buy a moderate amount of government bonds – perhaps in the range of $100 billion or less. After that, the Fed would review the economic climate at each meeting and decide whether it needs to buy more government bonds to bolster the recovery. That would allow the Fed to avoid making the kind of upfront commitment to buy government debt on a large scale in the trillion-dollar range. It also could ease concerns among some Fed officials about carrying out the type of large-scale interventions seen during the recession. The Fed ended up buying a total of roughly $1.7 trillion of mortgage securities and debt, as well as government bonds, during the recession. Another big buying binge would complicate the Fed’s efforts later on to unwind all its stimulus. There are also concerns that another large-scale effort could spark inflation later on or trigger a wave of speculative buying that could create bubbles in the prices of bonds or commodities or other assets. On Wednesday, the three Fed presidents in their speeches weighed the pros and cons of buying government debt in general, rather than the specific Bullard proposal. Rosengren is currently a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee – the group, including Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, that makes decisions on interest rates and other policies that influence economic activity. Kocherlakota and Plosser will both be voting members next year, although they participate in the Fed meetings and debates over policy moves. Kocherlakota spoke in London, while Plosser spoke in New Jersey.

Read the full article →

Paul Volcker Slams ‘Broken’ Financial System, Banks, Regulators

September 24, 2010

Paul Volcker pulled no punches Thursday in a speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, criticizing nearly all aspects of the nation’s financial system, which he said is “broken.” The former chairman of the Fed and current chairman of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board had harsh words for banks, regulators, business schools and the larger economy. According to the Wall Street Journal , Volcker improvised the remarks, having decided not to read his prepared speech. He called for “structural changes in markets and market regulation.” Investment banks, he said, according to the WSJ , have become “trading machines instead of investment banks [leading to] encroachment on the territory of commercial banks, and commercial banks encroached on the territory of others in a way that couldn’t easily be managed by the old supervisory system.” The “Volcker Rule,” which was billed as a key component of the recent Dodd-Frank financial reform act, was designed to limit banks’ ability to use taxpayer-backed funds to make investments on their own behalf. But the final version of the rule, after being subjected to lobbying and compromise, was weaker than Volcker had intended. He told The New Yorker he was “a little pained that it doesn’t have the purity I was searching for.” His critique Thursday didn’t stop with investment banks, according to the WSJ . Central banks, he said, became “maybe a little too infatuated with their own skills and authority.” A problem with regulation, he said, is that it relies on human judgment. He also bemoaned regulators’ lack of perceived authority, saying that a financier might tell a regulator, “We know more about banking and finance than you do, get out of my hair.” As Bloomberg reported, Volcker said the mortgage system is “absolutely broken,” and is the most pressing problem in the current economic situation. “It’s going to take a long time to repair the basic disequilibrium in the economy,” he added.

Read the full article →

Video: Broaddus Says Federal Reserve `Not Out of Ammunition’: Video

September 21, 2010

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) — Al Broaddus, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, talks with Bloomberg’s Carol Massar and Matt Miller about central bank monetary policy and the outlook for the U.S. economy. In a statement released today, the Federal Open Market Committee said it’s willing to ease monetary policy further to boost the economy and lower unemployment while refraining today from expanding its holdings of securities. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

AIG Reportedly Hatches Plan To Repay Taxpayers

September 14, 2010

Two years after it received at least $180 billion in bailouts, of which $120 billion is still outstanding, American International Group has reportedly hatched a new plan to repay taxpayers and free itself from the government’s clutches. According to the Wall Street Journal , the insurer plans to convert the government’s 79.8 percent stake in the company into shares that the government can sell on the open market. The solution isn’t ideal. Before the shares can be sold, they must be converted from preferred to common stock, a move that would increase the government’s stake in the company to 90 percent, the Journal notes. The whole process would take several years and would only be feasible if AIG continues to recover. The company’s position is now certainly stronger than it was two years ago — the Journal reports that its debt, which back then traded at 30 or 40 cents on the dollar, is now trading at 80 or 90 cents. “We’ll make sure taxpayers get paid back in full, and they will,” AIG CEO Robert Benmosche told the New York Times last month, when the first hints of this plan were announced. Since then, the company has tried and failed to sell its Taiwan business Nan Shan when, as the New York Times reported, Taiwanese regulators objected to one of the potential buyers’ ties to China. Before it can launch the stock conversion plan, AIG would need to repay the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is owed $49 billion. More than financial troubles have plagued AIG. Two of its top executives differed on the insurer’s asset sale plans. After a dramatic standoff with the company chairman Harvey Golub , in which Benmosche threatened to quit if Golub didn’t, the CEO finally forced his colleague to resign in July. Last August, the outspoken Benmosche took over for Edward Liddy , who had served as CEO for less than a year. Benmosche’s tenure at AIG began with a two-week vacation, and he’s repeatedly blasted populist attacks against his company. He also reportedly pushed for a time-sharing agreement that would allow him to use the company jet for personal matters ,

Read the full article →

Janis Bowdler: Safety in Numbers: Creating a Fairer Housing Market

September 13, 2010

This blog post was coauthored by the Woodstock Institute and the National Council of La Raza . Pages and pages of ratios and figures don’t usually fire up a crowd, but they do affect the rash of foreclosures our country is experiencing, and Americans are fired up about that. One of the driving factors behind the foreclosure crisis was lenders putting unsuspecting borrowers into loans they could not reasonably afford. Borrowers of color, women, the elderly, and low-income families were favorite targets for these practices. Thankfully, legislators recently passed a bill that includes the modernization of a tool that is critical to fighting discrimination in the housing market. The Home Mortgage and Disclosure Act (HMDA) requires mortgage lenders to provide detailed reports of their lending activities to regulators and the public. HMDA data have long served as a powerful mechanism that identifies unfair lending practices, such as discriminating against minority families, women, and low-income borrowers. HMDA is 35 years old, however, and Congress recognized it was time for a tune-up. Now it is the job of the Federal Reserve to revamp HMDA to keep pace with an ever-evolving mortgage market. Next Thursday, September 16, the Woodstock Institute and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) will testify at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago about enhancing HMDA data collection. Woodstock, which seeks equal opportunity for modest-income families and communities of color to achieve economic security, and NCLR, focused on helping Latino families find safe loans and equality in the mortgage market, share the following three recommendations to enhance HMDA and better serve vulnerable communities. HMDA should: Collect “back-end ratios” that take debt into account. These include other types of monthly payment obligations in addition to the mortgage, and are a better reflection of a borrower’s overall debt burden. Require lenders to report how they documented a family’s income when underwriting the mortgage, and how they measured a borrower’s debt load. A strong concentration of “no-doc” loans in a low-income community, for example, could indicate that a lender might be systematically using lax documentation requirements to put borrowers into loans they are unable to afford. Collect loan performance and servicing records. The bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent rise in foreclosures have demonstrated that initial loan origination is only half of the story. Lenders were able to skirt regulations and disclosure requirements by adjusting the initial payment structure of a loan. The initial origination told us little about the potential success or failure of the loan, which is critical to determining whether a lender is meeting the community’s mortgage needs or whether discrimination is occurring. HMDA is a crucial tool in the fight against predatory lending. If you’ve read any of Woodstock’s reports on mortgage lending or used the community lending fact book , or followed NCLR’s banking reform updates , then you’ve seen how important clear data can be in targeting discriminatory lending practices. If done right, improved HMDA data will be the most effective portal of information that tracks and ultimately helps prevent a ballooning crisis. Without this increased transparency and lender accountability, whole neighborhoods, and minority homeowners in particular, will again bear the brunt of risky lending practices. HMDA certainly proves that there is safety in numbers. First, with proper updates, HMDA will generate critical numbers that can ultimately prove disparate practices among specific lenders. Second, the more practitioners, advocates, and members of the concerned public who get involved, the better. Call your local bank regulator. Register here to attend the Chicago public hearings on HMDA. And don’t forget to keep an eye out in this space for further HMDA activity.

Read the full article →

David Fiderer: How Paulson’s Chief of Staff Worked To Sabotage The Deal To Save Lehman

September 6, 2010

At a critical juncture in negotiations to forestall a Lehman bankruptcy, Jim Wilkinson emailed his buddy Jes Staley. Wilkinson, the Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and Staley, the head of JPMorgan Asset Management, knew perfectly well that their communications were unethical, if not illegal. But Wilkinson seemed intent on sabotaging the deal. Their covert emails, released by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, frame a new backstory to Lehman’s demise: Saturday evening, September 13, 2008: 7:55 pm, Wilkinson to Staley: “Still here working!” 7:58 pm, Staley to Wilkinson: “Likewise. Can I call you later?” 8:03 pm, Wilkinson to Staley: “You bet. Happy to give you an update.” 8:41 pm, Staley to Wilkinson: “Just called.” 8:59 pm, Wilkinson to Staley: “Just called u back…left a voicemail…is there a better number to reach you on?” 10:45 pm, Staley to Wilkinson: “What are your people saying?” We don’t know what was said, but you can bet that lawyers for Lehman’s bankruptcy estate will subpoena the private phone records and email accounts of Wilkinson and Staley, who may face embarrassing questions in deposition. “JPMorgan’s top management were the ultimate insiders to the evolving crisis, enjoying real-time access to the key decision makers at the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,” alleges Lehman in its 41-count lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase. The complaint states: “JPMorgan leveraged its life and death power as the brokerage firm’s primary clearing bank to force LBHI [Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.] into a series of one-sided agreements and to siphon billions of dollars in critically needed assets. The purpose of these last-minute maneuvers was to leapfrog JPMorgan over other creditors… The effect of JPMorgan’s actions taken with the benefit of unparalleled inside knowledge – was devastating. JPMorgan not only took billions of dollars more than it needed from LBHI, but it also accelerated LBHl’s freefall into bankruptcy by denying it an opportunity for a more orderly wind-down, costing the LBHI estate tens of billions of dollars in lost value.” The New York Fed had already circulated a plan to step into JPMorgan’s shoes, and act as Lehman’s primary clearing bank to provide intraday credit. The critical back-and-forth exchange between Wilkinson and Staley took place on Sunday, September 14, 2008: 7:46 am, Wilkinson to Staley: “Here at the fed now…looking like a wind down to me…what’s your sense?” 8:53 am, Staley to Wilkinson: “The issue here is can we end it a lehman. What’s the solution for Merrill? And who loses in the triparty unwind? And what will you guys do in the end. Jes” 9:00 am, Wilkinson to Staley: “No way govt money is coming in…I’m writing the usg coms plan for orderly unwind…also just did a call with the WH and usg is united behind no money. No way in hell Paulson could blink now…we will know more after thi ceo mtg this morning but I think we are headed for a winddown unless Barclays deal gets untangled” 9:11 am, Staley to Wilkinson: “I think the market can take the lehman unwind, but there needs to be a bid for Merrill early in the week. If Merrill goes, the whole 2a7 funding of Wall Street [i.e. financing commercial paper through money market funds] stops and the Fed will have to step in a bigger way. Its getting heated here. And I think people are getting that Paulson wont move. Jes” At that particular moment, Jes knew something that others on Paulson’s team did not. Seventeen minutes afterward, at 9:28 am, Paulson’s press secretary. Michele Davis, emailed The Financial Times to explain how the government could support an agreed-upon deal involving Barclays’ acquisition of Lehman, after a spin-off of $50 billion in mortgage assets financed by a consortium of Wall Street banks. The off-the-record message alluded to the Federal Reserve’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility, which was created at the time of the Bear Stearns bailout. A few minutes after Davis’s email, Paulson told everyone that the deal was dead. The roles played by Paulson and The White House were the unacknowledged elephants in the room on September 1st and 2nd, when the FCIC held hearings on the government’s decision to let Lehman go under. Apparently, no one wants to confront Paulson and his succession of contradictory fibs. “I never once considered it appropriate to put taxpayer money on the line in resolving Lehman Brothers,” he said on September 15, 2008, broadcasting his dishonesty to everyone who had worked with him over the prior week. Ten months later, he testified, “We were unable to find any buyer to come in and make the acquisition on an assisted basis or an unassisted basis.” But he reversed himself within a few minutes, after Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill, reminded him that Bank of America was willing to acquire Lehman, if it got sufficient financial help. “We went to Bank America repeatedly,’ he said, “and Bank America asked each time for more assistance and we had the — we had the private sector ready to fill the gap. But Bank America in my judgment was never serious about it,” he said. The private sector was, in fact, ready to fill the gap, so long as the U.S. government provided indirect financial support. The sticking point with Barclays and its UK regulator, the Financial Services Authority, was the U.S. government’s insistence that Barclays guarantee all of Lehman’s trading obligations as of Monday morning, September 15, 2008, before due diligence could be completed. This was too much for the FSA, which had insufficient time or information to adequately review the situation. Paulson put it this way: “The British screwed us.” Three days before Wilkinson wrote, “No way govt money is coming in,” Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner had agreed upon a written plan of action that clearly stated otherwise. Government support was available, but it would not be divulged until the last minute, after top Wall Street banks had been brought together in a room and pushed hard to provide the maximum level of private financing to avert a Lehman collapse. Both Geithner and Paulson had assured the FSA that government assistance might be available to support a Barclays acquisition. Because of the extreme sensitivity of the matter, none of the Wall Street banks would be given more than two hours notice to that fateful meeting, scheduled for 6:00 pm on Friday, September 12, 2008, at the New York Fed. But Wilkinson was blabbing his thoughts to others, including a headhunter in San Francisco. At 8:49 am on September 12, he emailed Abby Adlerman, a recruiter at Russell Reynolds in San Francisco, “…looks like Paulson will go to NYC to sort through this Lehman mess…can’t imagine a scenario where we put in gov’t money…we shall see…” [The ellipses are Wilkinson's.] The written gameplan, which distributed among Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner and their people, framed the issue of government support as follows: – We should have in mind a maximum number of how much we are willing to finance before the meeting starts, but not divulge our willingness to do so to the consortium. – Term of any liquidity support should be long enough to guard against a fire sale, but on a short enough fuse to encourage buyers of Lehman assets to come forward. Two months to a year in duration? – Preferable to style FRBNY commitment as much as possible as a backstop rather than lending, but we can’t attach too much of a subsidy to liquidity, or the consortium will not have sufficient incentives to act.

Read the full article →

FOMC Minutes: Fed Officials Pondered Further Stimulus

August 31, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve officials signaled at their August meeting that they would consider going beyond a modest program to purchase government debt if necessary to boost the economy. Minutes of the Fed’s discussions from the Aug. 10 meeting show the central bank recognized that the economy could need further stimulus beyond the debt purchases. Those are intended to lower interest rates on a range of consumer and business loans. The minutes, which were released Tuesday, did not spell out what new steps might be taken. But they do indicate that the officials focused attention on the modest move the Fed did take at the meeting, which would invest a small amount of proceeds from its huge mortgage bond portfolio in Treasury securities. Some Fed officials argued that reinvesting proceeds from the Fed’s holdings of mortgage securities “could send an inappropriate signal to investors about the committee’s readiness to resume large-scale asset purchases,” the minutes said. One member objected and said making the change could complicate the Fed’s eventual exit from its period of aggressive credit easing, which began more than two years ago as the country plunged into a deep recession. The minutes are not verbatim and do not identify speakers but analysts said they provided an indication that the central bank engaged in an extensive debate over the issue before agreeing to provide nearly unanimous support for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. In the end, the Federal Open Market Committee, the panel of Fed board members and regional bank presidents who set interest rates, voted 9-1 to support the modest easing move. The only dissent came from Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig. Fed policymakers took the step at a time when economic growth is slowing and many are concerned the country could slip back into a recession. After the recession began in December 2007, the Fed tripled its balance sheet to help bolster economic growth and steady the housing market. In addition to buying Treasury debt, it purchased $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. For most of this year the central bank had discussed exiting the program. But at the August Fed meeting, the central bank said it would use the proceeds from the mortgage program to purchase Treasury bonds. The goal would be to keep its total holdings of securities at around $2.05 trillion. The minutes said that the committee believed that the most likely outcome for the economy was that it would continue to grow and would avoid a destabilizing bout of deflation – when prices and wages decline. But the panel said it was prepared to go further to guard against either a return to recession or deflation. The minutes said the Fed panel agreed it would “need to consider steps it could take to provide additional policy stimulus tools if the outlook were to weaken appreciably further.” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said it was significant that the minutes showed Fed officials were willing to consider various steps to bolster growth. Zandi said the Fed could begin significantly expanding its balance sheet by buying large amounts of Treasury securities if the unemployment rate begins to rise on a sustained basis. The jobless rate stood at 9.5 percent in July with the government scheduled to release the August report on Friday. However, other economists said they did not believe the central bank was close to resuming a large-scale effort to buy securities. They predicted that the central bank will keep its target for overnight bank loans at zero to 0.25 percent, where it has been since December 2008. But it will not launch other major credit easing efforts unless the economy weakens significantly. “The Fed doesn’t believe we will have a double-dip recession. But if there is a significant deterioration in the economy, then all bets are off and they will act more aggressively,” said David Jones, head of DMJ Advisors, a Denver-based economic consulting firm. The minutes showed the discussions on Aug. 10 lasted for more than five hours. Many analysts said the amount of time spent on a relatively modest change showed the central bank is not close to approving a large-scale operation. “The Fed will only restart its asset purchases if economic conditions deteriorate markedly from where we are now,” said Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics. Bernanke discussed a range of options that could be employed at a Fed conference Friday in Wyoming including resumption of large-scale purchases of Treasury securities. In that speech, Bernanke said he believed that the economy would continue to grow modestly in the second half of this year and then rebound to stronger growth in 2011.

Read the full article →

FOMC Minutes: Fed Officials Pondered Further Stimulus

August 31, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve officials signaled at their August meeting that they would consider going beyond a modest program to purchase government debt if necessary to boost the economy. Minutes of the Fed’s discussions from the Aug. 10 meeting show the central bank recognized that the economy could need further stimulus beyond the debt purchases. Those are intended to lower interest rates on a range of consumer and business loans. The minutes, which were released Tuesday, did not spell out what new steps might be taken. But they do indicate that the officials focused attention on the modest move the Fed did take at the meeting, which would invest a small amount of proceeds from its huge mortgage bond portfolio in Treasury securities. Some Fed officials argued that reinvesting proceeds from the Fed’s holdings of mortgage securities “could send an inappropriate signal to investors about the committee’s readiness to resume large-scale asset purchases,” the minutes said. One member objected and said making the change could complicate the Fed’s eventual exit from its period of aggressive credit easing, which began more than two years ago as the country plunged into a deep recession. The minutes are not verbatim and do not identify speakers but analysts said they provided an indication that the central bank engaged in an extensive debate over the issue before agreeing to provide nearly unanimous support for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. In the end, the Federal Open Market Committee, the panel of Fed board members and regional bank presidents who set interest rates, voted 9-1 to support the modest easing move. The only dissent came from Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig. Fed policymakers took the step at a time when economic growth is slowing and many are concerned the country could slip back into a recession. After the recession began in December 2007, the Fed tripled its balance sheet to help bolster economic growth and steady the housing market. In addition to buying Treasury debt, it purchased $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. For most of this year the central bank had discussed exiting the program. But at the August Fed meeting, the central bank said it would use the proceeds from the mortgage program to purchase Treasury bonds. The goal would be to keep its total holdings of securities at around $2.05 trillion. The minutes said that the committee believed that the most likely outcome for the economy was that it would continue to grow and would avoid a destabilizing bout of deflation – when prices and wages decline. But the panel said it was prepared to go further to guard against either a return to recession or deflation. The minutes said the Fed panel agreed it would “need to consider steps it could take to provide additional policy stimulus tools if the outlook were to weaken appreciably further.” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said it was significant that the minutes showed Fed officials were willing to consider various steps to bolster growth. Zandi said the Fed could begin significantly expanding its balance sheet by buying large amounts of Treasury securities if the unemployment rate begins to rise on a sustained basis. The jobless rate stood at 9.5 percent in July with the government scheduled to release the August report on Friday. However, other economists said they did not believe the central bank was close to resuming a large-scale effort to buy securities. They predicted that the central bank will keep its target for overnight bank loans at zero to 0.25 percent, where it has been since December 2008. But it will not launch other major credit easing efforts unless the economy weakens significantly. “The Fed doesn’t believe we will have a double-dip recession. But if there is a significant deterioration in the economy, then all bets are off and they will act more aggressively,” said David Jones, head of DMJ Advisors, a Denver-based economic consulting firm. The minutes showed the discussions on Aug. 10 lasted for more than five hours. Many analysts said the amount of time spent on a relatively modest change showed the central bank is not close to approving a large-scale operation. “The Fed will only restart its asset purchases if economic conditions deteriorate markedly from where we are now,” said Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics. Bernanke discussed a range of options that could be employed at a Fed conference Friday in Wyoming including resumption of large-scale purchases of Treasury securities. In that speech, Bernanke said he believed that the economy would continue to grow modestly in the second half of this year and then rebound to stronger growth in 2011.

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: An Open Letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

August 30, 2010

I read your speech from Friday at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. In the speech you stated, “the Committee is prepared to provide additional monetary accommodation through unconventional measures if it proves necessary, especially if the outlook were to deteriorate significantly.” ( http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20100827a.htm ) It appears we are sliding into another recession and I have a simple suggestion that will redirect more money into the middle class and create more jobs than any policy proposal the Obama Administration has put forth to date. Since you acknowledged that you are willing to take extraordinary measures, why doesn’t the Obama Administration consider not giving federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms, foreign companies and other large businesses? I realize that you control monetary policy, but as the nation’s chief economist, and as one who advocates for fiscal policy, you could have an impact on this issue. In March of 2005, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General released Report 5-15, which states, “One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today is that large businesses are receiving small business procurement awards and agencies are receiving credit for these awards.” ( http://www.asbl.com/documents/05-15.pdf ) The SBA Inspector General has listed this problem as the number one management challenge facing the agency for the past five consecutive years. ( http://www.sba.gov/ig/onlinelibrary/tmc/index.html ) Since 2003, there have been over a dozen federal investigations which have found Fortune 500 firms and thousands of large companies around the world have received federal small business contracts. Some of those firms are: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, British Aerospace (BAE), Northrop Grumman, General Electric, Booz Allen Hamilton, Thales Communications, General Dynamics, and Dell Computer. ( http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html#5-15 ) According to the US Census Bureau and the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, small businesses create over 90 percent of all net new jobs. When it comes to creating jobs, the focus must be on small business. ( http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs359.pdf ) It is not surprising that the Obama Administration’s economic policies are not working. They are intended to create jobs, but are completely ignoring the small businesses that create all new jobs and employ over half of the private sector workforce, create over half of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), are responsible for over 90 percent of the nation’s exports, and generate over 90 percent of new innovations. Not only has the Obama Administration shortchanged small businesses with stimulus funds, but also information released by the Obama Administration clearly shows that every month President Obama has been in office, billions of dollars in small business contracts are being diverted to large businesses, Fortune 500 firms and multinational corporations. An even bigger problem is that on Friday, the Obama Administration released its fiscal year (FY) 2009 small business contracting data and claimed to have awarded over $96 billion, or 21.8 percent, in federal contracts to small businesses. In reality, of the top 100 recipients of small business contracts, 60 were large businesses that received 65 percent of the total contract dollars. In addition to diverting billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to large businesses, the percentage of awards to small businesses was also dramatically inflated by using an acquisition budget that was less than half of what it actually is. ( http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_program_office/govt_wide_2009.pdf ) The actual federal acquisition budget for domestic, foreign, unclassified and classified contracting is well over $1 trillion a year. The Small Business Act currently states that small businesses are to receive not less than 23 percent of the total value of all prime contracts, which would be over $230 billion a year. I am sure that 99.9 percent of all Americans would agree with me that the government should not be giving small business contracts to some of the biggest companies in the world. I think it is time for President Obama to honor his 2008 campaign promise, where he stated, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” If you are sincerely interested in turning the economy around, just do what the law says, and simply give small businesses the portion of federal contracts that they already should be getting under the law. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants. President Obama could achieve this by executive order, SBA policy, or by signing the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act, H.R. 2568, into law.

Read the full article →

Bernanke To Address Financial Crisis Inquiry Panel

August 30, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will testify this week about his role in the bank bailouts that sent billions of taxpayer dollars to banks deemed “too big to fail.” Bernanke will testify Thursday before the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The panel was created by Congress to investigate the roots of the financial panic that rocked Wall Street and the global economy starting in 2008. Bernanke and other officials considered the banks “too big to fail” because they feared the banks’ failures could spread panic and bring down the broader financial system. The government rescued insolvent companies such as Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and American International Group Inc. by brokering their sale to competitors or putting them under government control. Bernanke was a key architect of the bailouts. He worked closely with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time. Geithner and Paulson already have testified before the FCIC. Bernanke and Geithner have argued that the problem of “too big to fail” was solved by a sweeping overhaul of financial rules that was signed into law this summer. The law includes a process for shuttering big, complex financial companies using a money from investors and loans from the Treasury Department. Critics say the change will not prevent future bailouts. They point out that the biggest banks grew larger as the government pushed them to absorb smaller players. The hearings also will include testimony from Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair and Dick Fuld, who was CEO of Lehman Bros. when it filed for bankruptcy protection.

Read the full article →

Video: Eisenbeis Says Fed’s Lack of Clarity Causing Uncertainty: Video

August 26, 2010

Aug. 27 (Bloomberg) — Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist with Cumberland Advisors Inc. and a former research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, talks about Fed monetary policy and the outlook for the U.S. economy. The Ben S. Bernanke-led Fed, while saying U.S. growth would be slower than anticipated, announced on Aug. 10 it will buy Treasuries to set a $2.05 trillion floor on its balance sheet and keep interest rates from rising. Bernanke will have his first public chance to defend the decision and discuss his outlook when he speaks at the Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming later today. Eisenbeis speaks with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Scott Paul: The Onshoring Trend Is Phony

August 20, 2010

On Friday August 6th, no less an authority than the president himself heralded a USA Today front page story headlined: “Some manufacturing heads back to USA.” I watched CNBC that morning — the July unemployment figures were just out — and its anchors also trumpeted the news. So did the House Democratic leadership, which viewed the headline as a positive development and vindication of its recent focus on manufacturing. I don’t blame any of these folks for trying to squeeze the good news out of an otherwise horrible day of economic news, but it turns out that exactly the opposite is happening, Turns out they were all misinformed. Actual hard data released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia today shows that onshoring, in fact, has declined over the past two years. Only 4.5 percent of manufacturers surveyed indicated that they had brought work back to the U.S. since the beginning of the year, compared to 6.2 percent in a survey two years ago. On the other hand, offshoring continues at a higher, though slightly diminished, pace: 9.7 percent of companies indicated that they had offshored work, compared to 11.1 percent two years ago. There’s an explanation for why this “onshoring” myth has been perpetuated: it’s what multinational companies want you to think. These companies know that “Made in America” is a label that sells once again. Even KIA — the Korean automaker — advertises its minivan as being made in the USA. Companies know that they risk a consumer backlash if they offshore work. A survey done for the Alliance for American Manufacturing by Mark Mellman and Whit Ayres shows that the American people have an overwhelmingly negative view (83 percent unfavorable) of companies that ship jobs to China. So, corporations like General Electric and NCR build consumer goodwill by heralding an onshoring event. They don’t tend to publicize offshoring. The USA Today story , on which all this hysteria was based, focused on a few anecdotes of companies moving production back to the United States. My contribution to the story was simply to say that onshoring was a “trickle, not a flood,” and that “there’s still more going out than coming in.” The Philadelphia Fed numbers confirm this, as does our astonishingly high trade deficit, which was nearly $50 billion for the month of June alone. So, how do we really make an onshoring trend a reality? It will take far more than what either the Obama Administration or the Congress have proposed so far. First, we need to stop China’s cheating on currency. This isn’t protectionist — far from it. Even free trade economists like Paul Krugman and Fred Bergsten support a strong response. Those who say China has the leverage in the relationship are completely mistaken: they need our market more than we need their debt financing. We’ll create as many as 1.5 million new jobs by moving China to a market-based exchange rate, at no cost to our Treasury. Second, we need a real manufacturing strategy. “Made in America” must be more than slogan — it must be the purpose of our economic policies. It will take real investment in our crumbling infrastructure and our workforce to make this a reality. Beyond that, we’ll need to unravel decades of neglect by ensuring access to capital through innovative ideas like a government-backed infrastructure bank and manufacturing investment bank that would leverage private capital. We’ll also need a trade policy where the goal is balanced trade, and not simply loading up our shelves with more made in China consumables. Onshoring is possible. America possesses enormous advantages — highly skilled workers, abundant natural resources, amazing entrepreneurship and innovation — but if we don’t stand up to China and also get our own house in order, onshoring will remain a myth.

Read the full article →

Real Money: Questioning the True Cost of Fed’s ‘Free Money’ Policy

August 18, 2010

Thomas M. Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, continues his drumbeat to begin raising interest rates. Re-enforcing comments he made earlier this summer, Hoenig last week said it was time to begin tightening the fed’s purse strings…

Read the full article →

Video: New York Fed May Require Banks to Buy Back Faulty Loans: Video

August 4, 2010

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Dawn Kopecki reports on the possibility that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may require banks to buy back its faulty loans. The New York Fed may seek to make banks repurchase holdings of mortgages and other assets acquired through the rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc., a spokesman says. Kopecki talks with Matt Miller and Lizzie O’Leary on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Columbia’s Lee Bollinger Discusses State of Journalism: Video

July 29, 2010

July 29 (Bloomberg) — Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University who will become chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s board next year, talks about the state of the journalism industry. Bollinger speaks with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness.” (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

‘Army’ Of Former Regulators Join Lobbying Ranks After Financial Reform Bill

July 28, 2010

Nearly 150 lobbyists registered since last year used to work in the executive branch at financial agencies, from lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission to Federal Reserve bankers, according to data analyzed for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. In addition, dozens of former lawyers for the government, who are not registered as lobbyists, are now scouring the financial regulations on behalf of corporate clients

Read the full article →

Video: Broaddus Discusses Bernanke’s Testimony on U.S. Economy: Video

July 21, 2010

July 21 (Bloomberg) — Al Broaddus, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, talks about today’s testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke before the Senate Banking Committee. (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Warren Mosler: Small banks being crushed by Fed’s game of musical chairs

July 14, 2010

Small banks, already penalized with a higher cost of funds than the large banks

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: 2012: Voters Nix Incumbents, Demand Financial Reform and Fed Fraud Audit

July 1, 2010

The only part that needs to wait is the voting. Bloomberg News reported the ” Fed made taxpayers unwitting junk bond buyers ” (July 1, 2010) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then-New York Fed President Timothy Geithner told senators on April 3, 2008, that the tens of billions of dollars in “assets” the government agreed to purchase in the rescue of Bear Stearns Cos. were “investment-grade.” They didn’t share everything the Fed knew about the money. By using its balance sheet to protect an investment bank against failure, the Fed took on the most credit risk in its 96- year history and increased the chance that Americans would be on the hook for billions of dollars as the central bank began insuring Wall Street firms against collapse. The Fed’s secrecy spurred legislation that will require government audits of the Fed bailouts and force the central bank to reveal recipients of emergency credit. Congress’s proposed financial reform bill would not have prevented the last disaster, fails to address current problems, and will not prevent the next disaster (more on this in a future post). Among other things, lawmakers are leaning to a provision to allow an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank, but this should be a thorough fraud audit, and there should be ongoing audits. As for malfeasance at investment banks sheltered by the Federal Reserve Bank’s secrecy, in honor of Canada Day here’s my video interview from Canada CTV’s Lang and O’Leary Report (April 29, 2010) explaining there should be felony indictments for accounting fraud and securities fraud:

Read the full article →

AIG’s Former Derivatives Chief Claims He Could Have Gotten Better Deal For Taxpayers Than New York Fed

June 30, 2010

AIG’s former derivatives chief said Wednesday that taxpayers overpaid Wall Street for their AIG-related holdings, telling a federal investigative panel that he could have gotten “a much better deal” than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Joseph Cassano, the chief executive of AIG Financial Products from 2002 to 2008, told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that the New York Fed’s rapid move to settle claims by counterparties to AIG’s derivatives deals at 100 cents on the dollar “made me scratch my head.” “We had contractual rights,” Cassano said, explaining that the once AAA-rated insurer could have fought Wall Street counterparties like Goldman Sachs, which were using their contracts to exact concessions. “I don’t understand why people didn’t look at the contracts,” Cassano said. “I don’t think taxpayers would have had to accelerate a $40 billion payment” to settle those claims. The New York Fed, then led by current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, quickly moved to pay AIG’s counterparties full value for the securities underlying the insurance-like contracts AIG had underwritten, paying out more than $40 billion. Wall Street and foreign firms ended up receiving and keeping more than $62 billion in what many in Congress have called a “backdoor bailout.” “I would have been able to negotiate substantial discounts,” Cassano said, noting his own experience in exacting concessions from AIG’s counterparties during his time atop the firm’s derivatives unit. Asked if he would have been able to settle those contracts without any taxpayer cash — had he not left in early 2008 — Cassano said, “I don’t want to say any money, but I think I would have been able to negotiate a much better deal than what the taxpayer got.” Andrew Williams, a Treasury Department spokesman for Geithner who also served him during his time atop the New York Fed, dismissed Cassano’s claims. “Two years after the financial conflagration began, every amateur firefighter has a theory about how it might have been done differently, but ideas from those who lit the kindling aren’t particularly disinterested or useful,” Williams wrote in an e-mail. “Cassano did acknowledge that Treasury and the taxpayers (and not AIG) now stand to benefit from the significant upside in the ML III portfolios — even if he disagreed with the decision to take those assets out of AIG’s hands,” Williams added, referencing the New York Fed-created investment vehicle that purchased the underlying securities from AIG’s counterparties at full value and continues to manage those investments today. Officials from Treasury and the New York Fed claim taxpayers will be made whole on the AIG bailout, and may even turn a profit. Market participants and independent analysts strongly dispute that claim. Cassano, though, said Wednesday that he believes those assets “will perform over the test of time.” “If I was able to stay as chief negotiator of the collateral calls of these transactions, I would have used all of the rights and remedies available to us,” Cassano told the investigative panel. “And in that process I think we would not have had to forward the $40 billion the government did at that time, and I would have been able to negotiate deep discounts from counterparties.” READ the FCIC’s timeline of Goldman Sachs’s calls for more collateral from AIG: AIG-Goldman Sachs Timeline

Read the full article →