goldman-sachs

Bernanke: GOP Budget Cuts Could Cost 200K Jobs

March 2, 2011

WASHINGTON (By Mark Felsenthal) – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday a Republican spending cut plan would not cause a big dent to U.S. economic growth, but could cost around 200,000 jobs. Bernanke said that a $60 billion cut along the lines being pursued by Republican in the House of Representatives would likely trim growth by around two-tenths of a percentage point in the first year and one-tenth in the next year. “That would translate into a couple of hundred thousand jobs. So it’s not trivial,” he said in response to questions from members of the House Financial Services Committee. The Republican-run House has passed a budget bill for the current fiscal year that includes $61 billion in spending cuts, but majority Democrats in the Senate say the reductions would endanger the economic recovery. Any spending legislation must be approved by both chambers of Congress before it can become law. Members of Congress are locked in a bitter fight over the budget, with Republicans, spurred on by Tea Party fiscal conservatives, having made deep spending cuts and immediate deficit reduction a top priority. The Senate on Tuesday approved a House-passed bill to extend government funding for two more weeks, a move that averts an imminent shutdown of the federal government, but that does nothing to resolve the ongoing budget tussle. The bill, which now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature, contains $4 billion in relatively noncontroversial cuts, a sum House Republicans see as just a downpayment on their larger goal. Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius estimated that the larger spending cut bill would trim 1.5 to 2 percentage points off of the annualized economic growth rate in the second and third quarters of this year. Some of that pullback was already built into Goldman’s GDP forecast for 4 percent annualized growth in the second quarter. “Federal government spending enters directly into the Commerce Department’s GDP estimates, so unless there is a full offset from other components of GDP a reduction in federal government spending must reduce GDP on impact,” Hatzius wrote in a note to clients. (Additional reporting by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, David Lawder, Lucia Mutikani and Emily Kaiser; Editing by Gary Crosse) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Ex-Goldman Sachs Board Member Accused Of Insider Trading

March 1, 2011

Goldman Sachs former director Rajat K. Gupta has been charged with insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission , for allegedly giving a hedge fund manager secret information about the bank’s financial health. Gupta, who left the Goldman board of directors last year, has been accused of participating in a $18 million insider trading scandal. He allegedly tipped off indicted Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam twice in 2008, allowing the hedge fund to reap millions. The case is the latest example of the SEC’s ramped-up effort to root out insider trading, and it constitutes a significant embarrassment for Goldman Sachs. Gupta told Rajaratnam that Goldman was in better shape than expected, before second quarter earnings were announced in 2008, the SEC says. He also told the hedge fund manager that Warren Buffet’s company Berkshire Hathaway was investing $5 billion in the bank, before that information was made public, according to the SEC’s complaint. Gupta, who was formerly the head of consulting giant McKinsey & Co., also sat on the board of directors of Procter & Gamble, and he stands accused of passing Rajaratnam secret information about that company as well. The SEC previously charged Rajaratnam with insider trading. The billionaire hedge fund manager has pleaded not guilty. After it came out last spring that the government was examining whether Gupta had shared secret information , Gupta left the Goldman board. From Robert Khuzami, the SEC’s director of enforcement: “Gupta was honored with the highest trust of leading public companies, and he betrayed that trust by disclosing their most sensitive and valuable secrets.” READ the complaint below: 33-9192

Read the full article →

FDIC Chief: Too Big Banks Should Be ‘Downzied’

March 1, 2011

WASHINGTON (By Dave Clarke) – America’s big international banks should restructure their operations unless they can prove they can easily be broken up if they start toppling during a financial crisis, said U.S. regulator Sheila Bair. Multinationals will need to set up more foreign subsidiaries and realign their legal structures to make it easier for regulators to liquidate them if necessary, Bair told the Reuters Future Face of Finance Summit. “If they can’t show they can be resolved in a bankruptcy-like process… then they should be downsized now,” said Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. “There is no reason in the world why they should get some special treatment backstop that other businesses in this country don’t have,” Bair said. She also said investors need to accept that they will get lower returns from banks that hold higher capital and run safer operations. The aim of orderly liquidation is to avoid a repeat of 2008, when the Bush administration bailed out American International Group and other firms but not Lehman Brothers. Lehman’s bankruptcy virtually froze capital markets. The “living will” requirement mandated by last year’s Dodd-Frank financial reform law is also designed to end the idea that some firms are too big to fail. It would put the greatest burden on banks with complex businesses and big international presences such as Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. By year’s end, big banks are expected to file with regulators their plans that would show how they can be closed down if they face a liquidity crisis. REGULATORS VS SHAREHOLDERS Bair said traditional deposit-taking banks in the United States probably can produce plans for a shutdown, but large multinationals with complex legal structures need to simplify. “The burden is on them initially to show us that they don’t think they need subsidiarization,” she said. “They need to give us a plan on how they can be resolved on an international basis without it.” A former general counsel at Bair’s agency said there may a tension between banks trying to meet these new regulations and maximizing shareholder value. “If you set up a business in a way to optimize ease of liquidation, that may not be the way to optimize running a successful business,” said John Douglas, now a Davis Polk attorney. Others said the changes may be more hassle than expensive and the changes would be legalistic. “This is just the latest in ‘Can you jump through this hoop backwards?’,” said Paul Miller, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets. Bair made clear she was not advocating that some large banks be broken up now — only that they need to make structural changes so that they could be broken up if they begin to fail. “Far too many of them, they manage their businesses along business lines as opposed to legal entity,” she said. INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGES Bair is now in the final months of her five-year term heading the FDIC, which she led during the tumult of the financial crisis. Her term ends in June. Bair said she hopes to have major aspects of new capital requirements and the liquidation regime in place before she departs. Among her concerns going forward is that new capital rules, known as Basel III, agreed to by leaders of the Group of 20 leading nations in November, will not be carried out with their intended strength. Banks have argued they are too strict and will impede their ability to lend and aid economic growth, an argument that may have traction with politicians. “I hope political leaders hold firm on this and understand that this is really something to protect their taxpayers and to protect their economies, this needs to occur,” she said. (Reporting by Dave Clarke in Washington; Additional reporting by Joe Rauch in Charlotte; Editing by Tim Dobbyn) thomsonreuters.com/products_services/media/brand_guidelines/legal_notice/” target=”_hplink”> Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

JPMorgan CEO Gets $17 Million Pay Day

February 18, 2011

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase & Co. has granted Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon stock and options worth $17 million, just a month after one of Wall Street’s largest banks posted a big jump in quarterly earnings. Dimon’s bonus follows huge compensation boosts earlier this month for the heads of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc., as many big banks _and their stocks – have rebounded from the financial crisis. The New York bank said in a regulatory filing Thursday that it granted Dimon 251,415 restricted stock units, of which half vest in January 2013 and the rest the following year. Based on the stock’s closing price Wednesday, the day the units were granted, the award is worth $12.1 million. Dimon, 54, also received 367,377 stock appreciation rights, which have a 10-year term and become exercisable in five installments staring next January. Using the Black-Scholes calculation method, the rights are valued at about $5 million. Dimon’s salary and other compensation weren’t disclosed in Thursday’s filing. JPMorgan Chase pleased investors in January with news that it will raise its dividend soon, pending approval from the Federal Reserve. The bank also reported that its income jumped 47 percent in the final three months of 2010 as fewer customers defaulted on their loans. Last month, Goldman Sachs more than tripled the salary of CEO Lloyd Blankfein to $2 million, not including stock awards, and also granted raises to four other top executives. Citigroup Inc. gave its top executive, Vikram Pandit, a salary raise to $1.75 million, from just $1 the previous year. Bank of America Corp., however, has said it won’t give its top executive a raise for 2011 and won’t hand out cash bonuses to top management. CEO Brian Moynihan’s salary will remain $950,000 for 2011, though he could get up to $9.05 million in stock awards if the nation’s largest bank by assets hits certain performance targets.

Read the full article →

Video: Kinder Morgan Raises $2.9 Billion in LBO-Backed IPO

February 11, 2011

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cristina Alesci discusses Kinder Morgan Inc., the energy-pipeline company whose owners include the Carlyle Group and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., raising $2.9 billion in the biggest private equity-backed U.S. initial public offering. Alesci, speaking with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop,” also discusses the outlook for leveraged buyouts. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

‘Too Big To Fail’ Will Never End, Buffett Says

February 11, 2011

No matter what the government does, taxpayer bailouts of the financial sector will sometimes be necessary, according to the nation’s second richest man. As markets crashed in the fall of 2008, government officials feared that if certain financial institutions failed, the entire financial system — or perhaps even the entire economy — would come down with them. In the months after the government extended a $700 billion bailout to the financial sector, lawmakers have striven to ensure that no institution poses such a systemic risk that it would be too big, or too interconnected, to be allowed to fail. But famed investor Warren Buffett, whose own firm profited handsomely from the bailout, said bailouts are an inevitable feature of finance, Bloomberg reports. Buffett, who is personally worth at least $45 billion , told the government panel charged with investigating the causes of the financial crisis that its work would not prevent the phenomenon of “too big to fail.” “You will always have institutions that are too big to fail, and sometimes they will fail,” Buffett told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in May, according to Bloomberg. His recorded comments were released Thursday by the FCIC, Bloomberg notes. (You can read the full set of FCIC documents here .) “We still have them now. We’ll have them after your commission report.” Buffett’s diagnosis joins a chorus of similar warnings. Yale economist Robert Shiller , speaking last fall at The Economist ‘s Buttonwood Conference in New York City, said the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation would not stop financial firms from being of systemic importance. “What we’ve seen so far is not going to eliminate the problem of systemic risk, because it’s a very difficult problem. It involves the nature of the banking system, which is inherently vulnerable,” Shiller said. “It’s vulnerable to runs and collapses, just like steam engines are vulnerable.” Ending “too big to fail” has been a priority for government officials. Much talk was spent on a so-called “resolution authority,” which would theoretically allow the government to break up banks on the verge of failure. But even before the bill was passed, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke expressed doubts that such authority would work. As of now, the nation’s four biggest banks are able to get even bigger before they even reach the government-imposed limits, HuffPost’s Shahien Nasiripour reported. Buffett, for his part, made a successful bet that the government would bail out the financial sector. His firm injected $5 billion into Goldman Sachs during the worst of the crisis, as part of a highly lucrative deal . Buffett’s preferred stock earns a 10 percent dividend annually . Last fall, when Goldman was reportedly trying to exit the deal early, the bank was paying Buffett’s firm about $1.3 million every day. As the Wall Street Journal noted, that’s about $15 per second.

Read the full article →

Wall Street Compensation Lawyer: ‘I Have Friends Who Blame Me For The Crisis’

February 6, 2011

Don’t blame record levels of Wall Street pay for the financial crisis, one high-powered lawyer tells the Wall Street Journal . In an interview with the WSJ Steve Eckhaus, a New York City lawyer who has brokered pay packages for some of the Street’s most well-known execs, says pay just wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis. Most of his clients are as “pure as driven snow,” he tells the WSJ , and the crisis was caused by a “confluence of economic, political and historical factors.” Here’s more from the WSJ : “I hate to say it, but I have friends who blame me for the financial crisis,” says Mr. Eckhaus, who estimates he has negotiated well over in $5 billion in banker pay over the years, including several $100 million pay deals. Eckhaus, who has worked on deals for execs like former Lehman Brothers CFO Erin Callan and former Goldman exec Tom Montag (now of Bank of America), leaves out ample evidence that compensation did play a significant role in the financial crisis — and may, in fact, hurt long-term corporate performance. In a highly-anticipated report released last month the FInancial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a government panel charged with investigating the causes of the meltdown, pointed to compensation as a key factor. “Compensation systems–designed in an environment of cheap money, intense competition, and light regulation–too often rewarded the quick deal, the short-term gain–without proper consideration of long-term consequences,” the report reads. The FDIC is reportedly weighing a proposal to force the nation’s largest banks — including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo — to defer at least half of all bonuses compensation to top execs for at least three years. Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill passed last year, regulators may prohibit compensation practices that compel execs to take “inappropriate risks .” Since the crisis, the EU, for its part, has pushed to establish limits on financial industry compensation. Aligning pay with long-term shareholder interests is also one of the top concerns surrounding the international bank accords known as Basel III . A report released last year by the Council of Institutional Investors, a group of public and privete pension funds, found that Wall Street pay practices had not sufficiently changed after the financial crisis.

Read the full article →

Regulators May Force Wall Street To Defer Half Of Executives’ Bonuses, Wall Street Journal Reports

February 5, 2011

(Reuters) – U.S. regulators will propose that major financial firms defer at least half of bonuses paid to top executives for at least three years, the Wall Street Journal cited sources as saying on Saturday. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp is expected on Monday to approve the draft rule, which seeks to force the largest financial firms — including Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and Morgan Stanley (MS.N) — to tie incentive-based pay to individual employees’ long-term performance, rather than just hand out large chunks of cash each year, the paper said. Under the proposal, the firms would have to review the results of trades or other business decisions tied to an employee’s bonus pay over the deferral period, the Journal cited people familiar with the discussions as saying. If losses occur, the firms would have to reduce or eliminate the delayed compensation accordingly, it added. The proposed rule also would instruct the boards of firms with more than $50 billion in assets to identify lower-rung employees who are capable of inflicting “material risk” on their company, the Journal said. The firms would have to defer a portion of bonus pay for these employees as well, it said. The Dodd-Frank law, enacted in July, requires regulators to ban pay practices that encourage “inappropriate” risk taking. On Monday, banking agencies will release a rule to implement this section of the law. The rule is expected to require a significant amount of executives’ bonuses to be deferred over a number of years, similar to a proposal G20 leaders agreed to in 2009 in which the proposed period of deferral was at least three years. That proposal also suggested 40 to 60 percent of bonus pay be deferred. In June, a month before Dodd-Frank became law, banking regulators led by the Federal Reserve put out guidance on pay, suggesting compensation should not cause employees to take “imprudent risk” and that the board of directors should be involved in policing pay. The rules to be released on Monday are expected to be more specific. Some banks are already broadly in line with most of those terms, notably Morgan Stanley. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs CEO’s Pay More Than Triples

January 28, 2011

NEW YORK — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has more than tripled the salary of CEO Lloyd Blankfein to $2 million, and also granted raises to four other top executives. The investment bank said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Friday that its board’s compensation committee set the new base salary for Blankfein, effective Jan. 1. His previous salary had been $600,000. The committee set salaries at $1.85 million for four other executives. They are Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn; Chief Financial Officer David Viniar and Vice Chairmen Michael Evans and John Weinberg. The filing didn’t elaborate on the reasons for the raises. The salaries don’t include other forms of compensation the executives can receive, such as stock options.

Read the full article →

Bank Bailouts: ‘The Screwing Of The American People’ (VIDEO)

January 28, 2011

In a video exploration of the bank bailouts, two cute creatures decide the bank bailouts amount to “the screwing of the American people.” In the new video, from Omid Malekan , one character asks why the banks were bailed out, and the other responds “Because they said the banks were too big to fail, and if they failed, there would be too many foreclosures, and no new mortgages.” The video goes on to point out that after the bailouts, banks didn’t stop foreclosures, or issue new mortgages. But one executive at Bank of America did pay bill on his $70,000 desk. (Scroll down to watch.) The banks also bought other banks, becoming “too bigger-er to fail.” Among the banks too bigger-er to fail: “JP Morgan Chase Bear Stearns Washington Mutual and the Bank of America Countrywide Merill Lynch.” What about Goldman Sachs, did they buy another bank? The character in blue asks. “No,” the other replies. “Because when you already own the US government, you don’t need to buy any more banks.” WATCH below The video follows Malekan’s popular explanation of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy, which presented it as a hopelessly misguided effort to save the world economy. WATCH below

Read the full article →

Video: Investor Poll Says Facebook Overvalued at $50 Billion

January 28, 2011

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) — Facebook Inc. isn’t worth $50 billion, according to a poll of global investors. Sixty-nine percent of investors say Facebook is overvalued after Goldman Sachs invested $450 million in a deal that put the company’s worth at $50 billion, according to the quarterly poll of 1,000 Bloomberg customers who are investors, traders or analysts. Bloomberg’s Deirdre Bolton reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Bernanke: All But 1 Major Wall Street Firm Could Have Failed

January 27, 2011

WASHINGTON (By Dave Clarke and Kevin Drawbaugh) – Twelve of the 13 most important U.S. financial firms were at the brink of failure at the height of the credit crisis in 2008, according to previously undisclosed remarks made by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in November 2009 to an investigative panel. The deeply divided Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission released the notes from its private interview with Bernanke and others on Thursday as part of a final report on the origins of the 2007-2009 crisis. The 10-member panel’s final report was endorsed only by its six Democratic members. It criticized the culture of deregulation championed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and said the government had ample power to avert the crisis but chose not to use it. The report did not identify which of the 13 firms was not considered by Bernanke to be in danger of failure, but it did say that Goldman Sachs was among those Bernanke feared could be taken down amid a huge funding crisis in late 2008. “If you look at the firms that came under pressure in that period … only one … was not at serious risk of failure,” Bernanke told the commission. “Even Goldman Sachs, we thought there was a real chance that they would go under.” The Fed chairman also said: “As a scholar of the Great Depression, I honestly believe that September and October of 2008 was the worst financial crisis in global history, including the Great Depression.” The commission was set up by Congress to get at the roots of the crisis, but its final product was marred by the lack of consensus and comes after last year’s passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, further blunting its impact. A competing minority report from three Republican commissioners largely exonerated Greenspan, a fellow Republican, saying, “U.S. monetary policy may have contributed to the credit bubble but did not cause it.” Through a spokeswoman, Greenspan declined to comment. A fourth Republican on the panel issued yet another report, focused mostly on U.S. housing policy in explaining the origins of the crisis. FODDER FOR BOTH SIDES In the fight between pro-reform Democrats and anti-reform Republicans, the main report and the two dissents provide fodder for both sides, while highlighting partisan fault lines that today pervade political Washington, from financial regulation, to health care, to addressing the budget deficit. The unveiling of the three reports was seen by markets as a nonevent that did not pose a fresh threat to financial firms. “The market is not really going to react — the market already has a very good idea of what happened,” said Matt McCormick, portfolio manager at Bahl & Gaynor Investment Counsel Inc in Cincinnati, which owns bank shares. One Wall Street investor, who asked not to be named, said: “We still face the same problems we did before. I don’t think we’re learning much from it. This is total rehash of stuff that has surfaced and been discussed and chewed over.” As banks have pulled back from the brink over the last 12 months and returned to profits, some senior bankers have gone on the offensive against critics. Barclays Plc’s chief executive Bob Diamond told UK lawmakers earlier this month that it was time for banks to stop apologizing for the mistakes that caused the financial crisis. “There was a period of remorse and apology for banks and I think that period needs to be over,” Diamond told a committee during 2-1/2 hours of questioning. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co said not all banks were in trouble during the crisis. “There is a huge misconception. Not all banks needed that (rescue money). Not all banks would have failed,” Dimon said on Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos. French President Nicolas Sarkozy clashed with Dimon at a later Davos session, telling him, “The world has paid with tens of millions of unemployed, who were in no way to blame and who paid for everything.” MOUNTAIN OF NOTES, DOCUMENTS Regardless of the policy implications, a mountain of interview notes and internal documents obtained by the panel contained some revelations. For instance, the main report says Goldman Sachs capitalized on the government’s bailout of American International Group to get even more payments from the beleaguered insurer, including $2.9 billion from proprietary trades Goldman placed for its own profit. The FCIC says that beyond the $14 billion in AIG bailout funds that Goldman distributed to clients, Goldman received an additional $3.4 billion from AIG related to credit default swaps; that the bulk of that was made possible by the AIG bailout; and that Goldman kept $2.9 billion for its own books. The crisis that peaked in the fall of 2008 pushed some of the most storied financial firms to the brink of collapse. Some, such as AIG, were bailed out by the government; others, such as Lehman Brothers, were not and vanished. Democratic commissioner Brooksley Born told a news conference that the panel made “several” referrals to authorities about potential violations of U.S. law related to the crisis, but panel members declined to give further details. The commission was set up by Congress in May 2009. The hope was that its work would rip the lid off the crisis in the comprehensive way that the Pecora Commission did in the 1930s during the Great Depression. Arthur Levitt, a former head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and now an advisor with The Carlyle Group, said the FCIC paled in comparison to the Pecora Commission, whose findings laid the groundwork for creating the SEC. “This particular commission was so political from start to finish in terms of both its composition and leadership that it was doomed from the outset,” Levitt told Reuters. All three of the FCIC’s reports generally agree the crisis was not, as some bankers have tried to portray it, some sort of unavoidable natural phenomenon. “We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable. The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire,” said the majority report of the six Democrats. “The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public,” it said. (Additional reporting by Maria Aspan, Ben Berkowitz and Daniel Wilchins in New York, and Joe Rauch in Charlotte; Editing by Tim Dobbyn) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Facebook Raises 15B Led By Goldman

January 24, 2011

Facebook has gained 15 billion as part of a financing round led by Goldman Sachs

Read the full article →

Facebook Hints At Possible IPO Date

January 21, 2011

(AP) NEW YORK — Facebook says it has raised $1 billion from non-U.S. investors through Goldman Sachs. Combined with a $500 million investment from Goldman, funds Goldman manages and Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies in December, the investments value Facebook at $50 billion. Facebook said Friday the money gives it greater financial flexibility. It did say how it plans to spend it. The company says that while it had the option to raise up to $1.5 billion through Goldman, it decided to limit it to $1 billion. As expected, Facebook says it will start filing public financial reports by April 2012. The company noted in a statement , “Even before the investment from Goldman Sachs, Facebook had expected to pass 500 shareholders at some point in 2011, and therefore expects to start filing public financial reports no later than April 30, 2012.” The company expects to have more than 500 shareholders in April of this year. When it does, regulations require it to start reporting is finances to the public within a year.

Read the full article →

Goldman Plans Huge Bond Sale

January 21, 2011

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is marketing $2.5 billion of 30-year debt in its first sale of the bonds in more than three years, as investors accept the lowest premiums since April for bank bonds with similar credit grades.

Read the full article →

Wall Street Bonus Season Begins

January 21, 2011

It’s bonus season for Wall Street, and while Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s employees are learning the extent of their 2010 pay cuts, they’ll still take home more than rivals at JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan started telling employees of year-end payouts this week, while Morgan Stanley will do it today, people told of the banks’ plans said, requesting anonymity because the timing isn’t public.

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: Financial Socialism by and for Wall Street Elites?

January 21, 2011

More than 70 percent of Americans say big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. An additional one in six favors slapping a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $400,000. Just 7 percent of U.S. adults say bonuses are an appropriate incentive reflecting Wall Street’s return to financial health. A large majority also want to tax Wall Street profits to reduce the federal budget deficit. A levy on financial services firms is the top choice among more than a dozen deficit-cutting options presented to respondents. Bloomberg As bonus season arrives, the gap between the American people and Wall Street couldn’t be wider. And where is Washington in this great divide? Don’t ask. At a moment when Americans desperately want jobs on Main Street and expect Wall Street to pay its fair share, Washington officials are hard at work — seeking jobs for themselves on Wall Street. (Congratulations, Peter Orszag, on parlaying your position as Obama’s OMB director into a top job at CitiGroup, the bank that received hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts and guarantees on your watch!) Most Americans rightly sense that our mixed free-enterprise economy, which once built a broad middle class, has devolved into a system of financial socialism by and for elites. The public wants and deserves answers to these basic questions: 1 . Why do people in the financial sector make so much more money than the rest of us? Mainstream economists claim that your income reflects the economic value you produce — at least in free and open markets. But are proprietary traders, for example, really 100 times more valuable than neurosurgeons? In the UK, some economists say no: The British New Economics Foundation calculates that “While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.” Let’s try a back-of-the envelope calculation of Wall Street’s net social value. Compare their bonuses and profits for roughly the last five years (about $500 billion) with the economic losses produced in the financial crisis the bankers caused (about $4 trillion in value destroyed, not counting the ongoing travails of the 22 million people who haven’t yet been able to find a full-time job). For every dollar “earned” on Wall Street, about 8 dollars were destroyed. (In case you’re suffering from financial amnesia and forgot how the financial sector single-handedly caused the economic crisis, please see The Looting of America . Chapter One can be found gratis on Alternet.com.) There’s plenty of room for argument about this kind of calculation. But even Wall Street wizards would have trouble defending the billions they’ve acquired by profiting from a bubble that blew up the economy. What’s the real value of junk CDOs that were rated AAA and then sold for enormous profits before they blew up? We could make a strong case that those who profited from such bubble investments – like the people who sold synthetic CDOs to Wisconsin school districts — should pay back their fraudulent profits. (In fact, the school districts have filed a lawsuit toward that end.) 2. Do current profits of financial firms come from tax-payer bailouts? The old free-market mantra was that you could make as much as you wanted, so long as you were willing to accept all the risks that went with it. Joseph Schumpeter, a great defender of capitalism during the 1940s when much of the world was turning towards socialism, called the process of winning and losing “creative destruction.” In his vision of capitalism, the best and the brightest staked everything in their quest for success, and only the true innovators survived. Inefficient enterprises would be left by the wayside. So… are the survivors of the economic collapse like CitiGroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, receiving their just rewards? Actually, it sounds a bit quaint these days to suggest that the rich must actually suffer the consequences of failure. These top financial institutions did not have to pay for their reckless gambling and gaming because they were deemed to big too fail, and so were bailed out. Goldman Sachs, for example, made a very bad bet when it purchased $13 billion of financial “insurance” from AIG to cover its toxic assets. AIG, due to its own enormously bad business decisions, could not pay up and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Had it gone under, as Schumpeter probably would have urged, Goldman Sachs would have received pennies on the dollar for its bad gamble, and might have gone broke. Instead, AIG was bailed out by taxpayers and Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar. It gambled, lost, and instead of suffering the consequences, was made whole by the government. And now Goldman Sachs execs are hauling in tens of millions in bonuses (disguised as stock options, even as its profits slip a bit from astronomical highs.) Clearly, the “free and open” market did not determine who should be spared “creative destruction.” Instead, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase et al were saved because of their deep political connections. These companies would be kaput were it not for taxpayer bailouts, hastily contrived loans, and all kinds of market guarantees from their friends at the Fed. Schumpeter would have recognized this scheme in a flash: It’s precisely the kind of crony socialism that he detested, only this time the game was was designed by and for financial elites in the world’s largest capitalist economy. (Please don’t compare the Wall Street rescues to the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Wall Street received ten times as much and will pay themselves a hundred times more than the top auto-executives. And the auto industry didn’t topple the US economy and send millions to the unemployment lines.) 3. But since Wall Street is paying us back, why shouldn’t they go back to earning whatever they can? Let’s follow through on that logic. Let’s say you raid your husband’s pension fund for $100,000 and take the bus to Vegas, naively hoping to triple your money. As luck would have it, you lose it all. Desperate, you manage to borrow another two million from a rich friend (Wall Street calls it “leverage”) — and then you really load up on your bets. Tragically, you lose that too. I hate to tell you this, but you’re in big trouble now. Don’t expect the government to come around and offer to cover your losses with taxpayer bailouts so you can keep on gambling till the lights go out, and then, if you win, pay back the government. That is, unless you’re too big to fail — say, a very large, well-connected investment bank. In that case, party on! It’s true, Wall Street has paid us back for much of the bailout money we gave them. That’s the good news. The bad news is that, having been rewarded for their bad behavior, they’re now back at the casino tables, playing many of the same games that took down the economy in the first place. This time there are even fewer players who are now way too big to fail. And fewer players means less competition — hence the rise in banking “fees,” especially for the average consumer. 4. Where does all their wealth come from? There are only two possible sources for all the money the financial sector is spewing: The bankers are either creating new wealth or they’re siphoning off wealth from the rest of us. Hedge fund honchos like to boast about how they weren’t bailed out and therefore are entitled to their enormous hauls. (The top 10 in 2009 earned an average of $900,000 an HOUR. The top 25 earned as much as 658,000 entry level teachers.) But our noble hedge fund managers have a great deal of difficulty accounting for what I call their “paradox of productivity.” You see, there’s supposed to be a connection between the productivity of your employees and your profits. Apple Corporation, for example, earned about $6 billion in 2009 by expertly engaging its 35,000 employees. (They went on to earn $6 billion in the last quarter of 2010 alone.) Along the way they offered us an array of popular new products that people are enjoying and putting to use. Appaloosa, the hedge fund, earned about as much as Apple in 2009 by speculating on god knows what. But it has fewer than 250 employees and it’s not at all clear what these individuals added to our economy — certainly not the iPad. How can 250 workers, no matter how wise and talented, produce as much real worth speculating on stuff as 35,000 Apple employees can make inventing, manufacturing and marketing useful products? They can’t. So hedge funds must be siphoning off wealth from elsewhere, not creating it themselves. (If you think I’m wrong, please prove otherwise, because I haven’t found a single book or paper about hedge funds, even from insiders or academics, that explains this paradox of productivity.) Ever since the crash, I’ve been calling for a ban on Wall Street bonuses and for new taxes on the financial sector. Though I felt like I was hollering in the wind, apparently most Americans agree (if we can believe the polls cited above). I naively thought that during the crash the government would come done hard on Wall Street as it did during the 1930s. I was wrong. Instead we have institutionalized a festering problem that allows Wall Street to continue siphoning off the nation’s wealth. So we have to think about a more radical restructuring. I believe the only way to end financial socialism for elites is to turn the core of high finance into group of heavily regulated public utilities — like power, water and electricity (not semi-private entities like Fannie and Freddie before they were nationalized). Financial socialism for elites has failed and will fail again, plunging millions of Americans into joblessness and sinking our nation deeply into debt. Big government has many faults, of course. But the American people, I believe, can tell the difference between public utilities that aim to serve the economy and a private oligopoly that only serves a tiny elite. Ironically, those who run the government don’t want government to end financial socialism (maybe because of financial industry campaign contributions–or because of Wall Street’s inviting revolving door). It may take another crash before Washington is willing to listen. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009. He is currently working on a new book, How to Earn $900,000 an Hour: The Rise of Wall Street Billionaires and the One-sided Class War, (hopefully to be published in 2011).

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs profits down 52%

January 20, 2011

Goldman Sachs profits down 52%

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Earnings Plunge As Trading Income Sinks

January 19, 2011

Goldman Sachs’s earnings dropped 38 percent last year as the economy finally took a toll on the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history. The firm announced Wednesday that it underwrote fewer stock offerings and less debt and conducted fewer trades for its clients, reflecting the decreased trading activity that marked 2010. Investors fled equities last year for the safe haven of bonds as the market continued to face threats such as the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. Less trading leads to decreased revenue for firms like Goldman. But the firm more than made up for the dropoff by trading with its own money. Goldman generated $7.5 billion off its own investments and trades, up 163 percent from 2009. Of that, roughly $5.3 billion came from trading stocks and bonds. Goldman’s investments in exotic financial instruments earned $1.5 billion, up 81 percent. Overall, the firm earned $8.4 billion last year off $39.2 billion in revenue. Though both figures are down from 2009, last year still ranks among the most profitable years in Goldman’s storied history. Economic and market conditions in 2010 were “difficult,” the firm’s chairman and chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, said in a statement. He anticipates growth and more economic activity this year. Among its challenges last year were the fallout from revelations that Goldman profited off trades where clients lost, and that it allegedly helped set up a mortgage-linked investment for a favored client that was designed to fail, yet sold it anyway to its other clients, reaping the favored client nearly $1 billion. Goldman settled that case with the Securities and Exchange Commission for $550 million. In an April hearing in the Senate, lawmakers accused the firm of deliberately trading against its clients and profiting from their losses, a debilitating charge for a firm in an industry that’s supposed to be all about putting the client first. This came after Goldman became a poster child in 2009 for Wall Street greed and excess. The firm was accused of playing a pivotal role in the global financial crisis and resulting taxpayer bailout, yet all the while paid its employees handsomely. Last year, the firm faced a dip in the funds it invests for clients. Its assets under management declined by $31 billion, or 4 percent. Clients actually took out $71 billion, but that was mitigated by a rise in the value of the holdings. As a result of the bad publicity, Goldman last week released an updated set of business principles it hopes will guide its future dealings. A survey commissioned by Goldman in which it surveyed its own clients revealed the extent of the damage to its brand. The survey, released last week, polled more than 200 of Goldman’s clients. “In some circumstances,” the resulting report declared, “the firm weighs its interests and short-term incentives too heavily.” Recently, as the firm pitched customers on buying shares in privately-held Facebook, it reportedly didn’t disclose that one of its fund managers rejected the deal for his own clients. The report recommended that the firm strengthen client relationships. “Clients raised concerns about whether the firm has remained true to its traditional values,” the report noted. Revenues from its “market-making” activities — essentially, setting up trades for clients — were also down 38 percent last year. Goldman’s revenues off trades with its own money more than doubled, though. ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

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 →

Goldman Sachs Earnings…

January 19, 2011

Goldman Sachs Earnings…

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Chief Makes Pitch For Groupon IPO

January 16, 2011

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein visited the Chicago headquarters of Groupon Inc. yesterday to pitch executives on hiring his firm for a possible share sale, a person familiar with the matter said.

Read the full article →

Video: Cohan Says Valuations of Groupon, Others `Not Real’

January 15, 2011

Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) — William Cohan, author of “House of Cards” and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor, talks about the outlook for an initial public offering by Groupon Inc. and the valuation of Internet startups that include Groupon, Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein visited the Chicago headquarters of Groupon today to pitch executives on hiring his firm for a possible share sale this year, a person familiar with the matter said. Cohan speaks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Goldman’s Blankfein Said to Visit Groupon to Pitch IPO

January 14, 2011

Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg News reporter Douglas MacMillan talks about Groupon Inc.’s plans for an initial public offering. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein visited the Chicago headquarters of Groupon today to pitch executives on hiring his firm for a possible share sale this year, a person familiar with the matter said. MacMillan talks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Konrad Says JPMorgan Has Built `Fortress Balance Sheet’

January 14, 2011

Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) — David Konrad, chief financial analyst at KBW Inc., discusses JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s fourth-quarter profit reported today and the outlook for earnings reports from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. The second-biggest U.S. bank by assets said profit rose 47 percent to $4.83 billion, or $1.12 a share, from $3.28 billion, or 74 cents, in the same period a year earlier. Konrad speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

BLOCKED: Despite Investment, Goldman’s Employees Can’t Get On Facebook At Work

January 3, 2011

According to the New York Times , Goldman Sachs and Russian investor Digital Sky Technologies are investing $500 million in Facebook . But Goldman employees could be blocked from viewing the fruits of their labor during office hours. “Even as Goldman takes a stake in Facebook,” writes the Times , “its employees may struggle to view what they invested in. Like those at most major Wall Street firms, Goldman’s computers automatically block access to social networking sites, including Facebook.” Indeed, the majority of U.S. companies block, limit or discourage employees from accessing social media networks at work, according to a survey conducted in 2009 by consulting firm Robert Half Technology . But Facebook use has been banned at Goldman Sachs since before blocked access became the norm for businesses. In 2007, TechCrunch reported that a Goldman trader in the UK was admonished for allegedly spending spending several hours a day on Facebook. Some may debate the benefits of blocking sites like Facebook and Twitter at the office, but it’s unlikely that Goldman will relax its policy, given the security risks associated with social networks. Recently, researchers with computer security software and services leader McAfee, Inc. predicted that social networks will be some of the biggest targets for cybercriminals in 2011. In the company’s 2011 Threat Predictions report , McAfee Labs senior VP Vincent Weafer issued the following warning: We’ve seen significant advancements in device and social network adoption, placing a bulls-eye on the platforms and services users are embracing the most These platforms and services have become very popular in a short amount of time, and we’re already seeing a significant increase in vulnerabilities, attacks and data loss. Facebook, one of the world’s top social platforms, is also one of the most vulnerable, according to the McAfee report.

Read the full article →

Video: Burns Says Insider Trading to Be Priority at SEC in 2011

December 31, 2010

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Douglas Burns, a formal federal prosecutor, talks about possible U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations in 2011. Burns also discusses the SEC’s probe of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Toyota Motor Corp.’s vehicle recalls. He talks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Jim O’Neill Goldman Sachs Guru, Sees 2011 At ‘The Year Of The USA’

December 27, 2010

Jim O’Neill shot to fame by predicting the staggering rise of emerging-market economies. Now the head of Goldman Sachs (GS) Asset Management, O’Neill recommended investors buy into so called BRIC economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China a decade ago.

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs May Change Its Pay Practices To Deter Risky Bets

December 24, 2010

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., weighing 2010 pay packages for a year that could rank as Wall Street’s second best, said it may grant bonuses that depend on future earnings, in addition to stock performance.

Read the full article →

Video: Goldman Executives Set to Get $111 Million in Bonuses

December 15, 2010

Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and his top deputies will collect about $111.3 million in stock next month in a delayed payoff from last year and their record-setting 2007 bonuses. Bloomberg’s Michael Moore talks about the Goldman bonuses with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Ex-Goldman Sachs Programmer Found Guilty Of Stealing Bank’s Computer Code

December 10, 2010

NEW YORK — A former Goldman Sachs programmer was convicted Friday of stealing secret computer code that enables high-speed trading from the company when he took a new job with a rival last year. The jury in U.S. District Court in Manhattan convicted Sergey Aleynikov of North Caldwell, N.J., of theft of trade secrets and transportation of stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce. Aleynikov of North Caldwell, N.J., could face up to 15 years in prison when he is sentenced March 18. Aleynikov and his lawyer, Kevin Marino, declined to comment after the verdict. Prosecutors who had called it a case about theft and greed requested after the verdict that Aleynikov wear an electronic bracelet until sentencing. The judge did not immediately rule on the request. The criminal case was brought after federal authorities concluded that Aleynikov left Goldman Sachs in 2008 with trade secrets to help his new company – Teza Technologies – gain an advantage with high-speed trading. Marino had argued that the case should have been no more than a civil lawsuit rather than criminal charges. Aleynikov, a naturalized U.S. citizen who came to the U.S. from Russia in 1990, left his $400,000 job as a vice president at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to join Teza Technologies LLC, where he was to be paid $300,000 annually, with a $700,000 bonus in his first year and a revenue-sharing plan that would have added an additional $150,000 annually. Marino said during the two-week trial that his client was merely trying to copy parts of the company’s software that was taken from public software codes. He acknowledged that Aleynikov had violated the company’s confidentiality agreements but said that was a civil matter. Aleynikov was arrested on July 3, 2009, as he returned from a trip to his new employer’s offices in Chicago. The trial brought into focus sophisticated computer programs that use mathematical formulas to execute scores of trades in short periods of time after evaluating moment-to-moment developments in the markets. The government said Goldman Sachs makes millions of dollars a year in profits from high-frequency trading and carries a competitive advantage over rivals because of the speed of its computer programs.

Read the full article →

Video: Hatzius Says U.S. Economy on `Verge’ of Strong Recovery

December 3, 2010

Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) — Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs Group, discusses job growth and outlook for the U.S. economy. Hatzius, speaking with Deirdre Bolton on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack,” also discusses expectations for Federal Reserve monetary policy and inflation. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Advance on Retail, Home-Sales Reports: Video

December 2, 2010

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Deborah Kostroun reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks advanced, giving the Dow Jones Industrial Average its biggest two-day rally since July, as purchases of existing homes unexpectedly jumped, retail sales topped analysts’ estimates and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. recommended buying financial shares. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Matt Taibbi: Fact-Checkers Almost Killed My ‘Vampire Squid’ Line About Goldman Sachs

November 24, 2010

Perhaps the most famous line ever written about an investment bank and one that, for better or worse, came to define Wall Street’s behavior during the financial crisis, almost never happened. Last summer, Matt Taibbi, the author of “Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids and the Long Con That Is Breaking America” , penned a lengthy and much-discussed article about Goldman Sachs in Rolling Stone . In it, Taibbi referred to Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” The article focused on the bank’s tendency to participate in and profit from a host of economic bubbles, from the Great Depression to the tech bubble to, more famously, the housing boom . Taibbi’s piece was criticized for playing fast and loose with certain facts, but its broad premise — that the politically-connected bank raked in profits while the rest of the economy struggled — was hard to argue against. But, in an interview with the Daily Beast , Taibbi said the “vampire squid” line actually had a rather obscure factual error in it. From the interview : Vampire squid. Do you remember writing that? It was originally much lower in the piece, I remember that. The other thing I remember is the fact checkers coming to me at one point and they almost killed the line because squids don’t have blood funnels. I was trying to explain that was part of what made it funny, but they were very insistent. I had to go over their heads on that one. Let it be known, for the record, that Goldman Sachs may be a “vampire squid,” but it does not have a corporate “blood funnel.”

Read the full article →

Video: Shapira Says Many Retailers Are at `Top of Their Game’

November 24, 2010

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — Adrianne Shapira, an analyst at Goldman Sachs & Co., talks about the outlook for Black Friday retail sales. Shapira speaks with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: Goldman Sachs Likes Copper and Gold for 2011

November 20, 2010

Load Up On Copper and Gold; The Best Commodity Plays for 2011 My sources report that there’s only 4 days copper inventory on the LME and in Shanghai. And China desperately needs copper for her economy. You can buy the December 2011 copper contract and expect to copper rise from $8200 a ton to $11,000 a ton. Or you can buy the copper ETF, CU, managed by JP Morgan Chase. Or you can buy the common stocks, Freeport McMoran, or Chinese mining stocks traded in Hong Kong. like Jiangxi Copper and Philex Mining. Or take a flyer in the December 2011 COMEX gold contract for the move from $1350 to $1650. Don’t sneer at 22% profit. GLD and CDX, two gold ETFs are another path. China needs iron ore; try BHP Billiton. All this and more in my Streettalk column up now. Link is below. “Stick With Commodities But Be Nimble In 2011 Says Goldman Sachs”

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: GM IPO Continues Trend of Rewarding Those Who Failed

November 18, 2010

What do the General Motors and the nation’s big banks have in common? They’ve both been bailed out by the federal government and, were it not for government largess, neither would be here today celebrating the automaker’s largely successful stock offering. It’s an irony that has escaped most of the media amid all the hoopla over GM’s “initial public offering,” which is an odd way to describe what is happening now regarding GM’s return to the public markets. IPOs, of course, are usually reserved for relatively new companies that have created new products or services in such a way that investors see promise in their future. GM, on the other hand, is a washed up maker or inferior cars. Its laundry list of problems — from failing to compete with Japanese brands to a bloated work force — pushed the company into bankruptcy in 2009, from which it emerged only after a $50 billion bailout from the government. Thanks to yesterday’s stock sale, GM is about 2/3 the way through paying back the money it owes the taxpayer. The rest is expected to be paid back over the next few years. So far, it’s unclear if the taxpayers will benefit from any of this; now stripped of many of its liabilities and flush with government handouts, GM is marginally profitable again. The stock opened at a healthy $33 a share (it “popped” on the opening a couple bucks before coming down a bit in price). But some analysts say it will have to double in value over the next year or so for the taxpayer to be made whole. While it’s unclear whether taxpayers will make money out the GM fiasco, it’s pretty clear Wall Street already has. Yesterday’s rally in the stock market was attributed to strong demand for the IPO of a company designated Too Big To Fail. Traders who managed to get their hands on the new GM shares were “flipping” them or selling them sometime after the market opened, which is why the price shot up at the opening before settling down as investors took profits on the initial run up. Even worse were the fees raked in by the big Wall Street firms that underwrote the stock issue. Let’s not forget that GM has company on the government’s Too Big To Fail list, and it’s the big Wall Street firms like Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, the top underwriters of the deal. Combined, the banks received $135 billion in bailout money during the 2008 financial crisis, and that doesn’t consider the countless billions they received through guarantees and other subsidies over the past two years. They are said to split a little under $120 million in fees, which we are all told is low compared to some other corporate deals. Recently some people at the Wall Street firms have complained not just about the relatively low fees but also about the fact that they had to split those fees with several minority-owned firms, which also have positions in the underwriting group. These outfits, of course, received a much smaller portion of the deal, so they made less money than the big firms. But executives at the large banks noted that many of the minority firms and their executives have made political donations to President Obama, which given the government’s ownership stake in the company, accounted for their presence on the deal. Give me a break. The saddest part about this nonsense is that it actually made its way into the deal’s coverage by a financial news television station (hint: it’s not the one I now work for now). Why is it such nonsense? Aside from the fact that many of GMs’ employees are in fact minorities, that all of the big firms in the main underwriting group were also big contributors to the Obama presidential campaign (for more on this check out my new book Bought and Paid for ), or that in just one example of political cronyism, Tom Nides, the No. 2 executive at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley has been appointed for a top position in the Obama White House, not one minority-owned firm needed a bailout in 2008. In other words, maybe it should be the minority-owned firms running the deal instead of the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs?

Read the full article →

Raymond J. Learsy: Mr. Buffet’s New York Times’ Op-ed. Thank You We Feel Better Now

November 17, 2010

The Financial Crisis is replete with ironies. Today the readers of the New York Times were regaled with Warren Buffet’s Op-ed (“Pretty Good For Government Work”) expressing his admiration and appreciation for the great good work performed by our government (or Mr. Buffett’s more down home sobriquet, our “Uncle Sam”) in rallying to Wall Street’s rescue. Woe to the nation, infers Mr. Buffet had these gallant warriors, the likes of Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner and Sheila Bair not acted ddecisively to bail out the nation. And had they not acted, “300 million Americans were in the domino line as well.” What Mr. Buffett conveniently overlooks is the many millions of Americans who continued in the domino line losing jobs, homes and nest eggs while the likes of his favorite investment bank, Goldman Sachs, in which he had invested billions, were making themselves and Mr. Buffett richer, setting up $23 billion bonus pools. Then to gild the golden Lilly the Wall Street firemen, Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson and Bair pumped billions via A.I.G. who, to quote Mr. Buffett, “A.I.G. was at deaths door.” And yet the Wall Street fire brigade was able to shake this near cadaver for tens of billions directly and indirectly lining the pockets of the favorite apple of Buffett’s investment eye, Goldman Sachs. Buffett goes on to talk about the “rot building up in the housing market”. That there was “mass delusion”. “In truth almost all of the country became possessed by the idea that home prices could never fall significantly.” Really? No mention here of those wonderful ‘Abacus” deals cobbled together by the folks at Goldman and their equivalents elsewhere, packaging what Senator Levin termed during Congressional hearings as “sh*t”. Packages of mortgages and notes destined to fail, foisted on the less sophisticated wrapped in another of Mr. Buffet’s important investments, Moody’s Corporation, conveying its triple A rating and then blessed with the imprimatur of what was once the uncontested blue ribbon of Wall Street certification, the stamp of a once vaunted Goldman Sachs. Altogether very insalubrious and highly questionable business practice, occasioning Mr. Buffett to raise high the banner of ‘caveat emptor’, defending Goldman’s actions far and wide to any microphone or interview that would hear him out, that buyers should have been more careful. Thereby inferring that the debacle of the “Abacus” deals were as much the fault of those who were taken down the garden path, a curious moral judgment for such a vaunted sage (please see “The New York Times’ Timely Whitewash of Goldman Sachs” 06.18.10). Was the bail out necessary? Very likely yes. But only fellow club members would have seen to it that it was done at everyone else’s expense. And if advantages accrued to card holding club members such as fat bonuses and no significant haircuts for equity and bond holders, so much the better. This is America!

Read the full article →

Richard H. Neiman: Financing the Economic Recovery in the New Congress

November 17, 2010

Communities across America are still reeling from the financial crisis, precipitated by a flood of questionable bank practices. It may therefore sound ironic that financing is integral to fixing the nation’s financial problems. Just as irresponsible lending drove the crisis, responsible loans and investments will finance the economic recovery. But what is ultimately required is a greater commitment from our banks and more creative thinking from government. No matter how the new Congress decides to proceed towards job creation, there is low-hanging fruit that can be exploited at no cost to the taxpayer — namely the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. For over 30 years, CRA has incentivized banks to provide much needed credit access and investments in low and moderate income neighborhoods, often minority communities, which had been blatantly redlined. The incentives for banks provided by this law have leveraged infusions of public capital perhaps by as much as 10 to 25 times, attracting additional private capital in the process. Over the past decade, the CRA has fostered a doubling in lending to small businesses and farms, in excess of $2.6 trillion. With two out of every three jobs in America created by small businesses, this is exactly the type of stimulus that we can all agree is needed to help jumpstart the economy. Despite how some scapegoat the CRA, these loans and investments have been done prudently and were not a culprit in the mortgage meltdown. For example, only six percent of the higher rate loans made during the subprime boom were originated by institutions subject to the CRA. Even more impressive, when these loans were originated by nonbank mortgage lenders who are not subject to CRA, less than two percent were acquired by institutions for CRA credit. Far from being part of the problem, CRA is part of the solution. It is therefore very welcome news that federal bank regulators are considering reforming the CRA to enhance its impact. They must. In the 1990s CRA evaluation started to become too formulaic. Becoming more quantitative was once the right choice, but over time the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. A “check-the-box” compliance mindset exists on the part of many banks and regulators that hinders the CRA from achieving its full promise. In at least three ways the law can be reenergized to better promote growth by recapturing more of the qualitative focus of the CRA. The new Congress can endorse these incentives to spur private sector action. The first place to start is with regulation. Regulators regularly examine banks for compliance with the CRA. Yet year after year, 85% to 90% of banks receive a “Satisfactory” rating. Like grade inflation, this uniformity reduces the value of the CRA as a tool for meaningful comparison. A more precise ratings scale is needed, to differentiate between banks whose performance is very good and those who are not making a real impact. The ability to distinguish more finely between banks would restore the CRA’s original intention to hold banks up to the sunshine of public scrutiny and place limits on their activities when CRA performance is substandard. Second, the reward that banks receive for excellence must be enhanced. The financial crisis — with imploding subprime loans that left people homeless — forced us all to recognize the close connection between consumer protection and bank safety. This connection should be formalized. When bank regulators evaluate a bank’s management quality, as part of their regular analysis of a bank’s safety and soundness, management should receive a higher score by demonstrating true commitment to the CRA and making worthy loans, and a lower score for not. Third, larger banks should be expected to look to a wider geography of underserved neighborhoods, beyond the physical locations of the bank’s branch network as the law now requires. The current brick-and-mortar approach does not reflect the business realities of banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which do not have retail branch operations. Banks should be encouraged to work nationwide, recognizing that office location does not drive their business strategy. If we do not act, good projects that can spur job creation will continue to languish for lack of financing. Even last year, with lending at a low point, banks subject to CRA still originated over six million small business loans. The CRA can be even more effective in encouraging banks to discover unexpected business opportunities within their reach. Our families and neighborhoods are waiting.

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: Jamie Dimon and Robert Rubin: Evasive on "Fraud as a Business Model"

November 12, 2010

Foreclosure fraud isn’t about losing paperwork or having incorrect paperwork. It is about committing fraud and trying to manipulate the U.S. legal system. No one–not even a bank–can show up in court with phony evidence. State Attorneys General decry foreclosure fraud, because among other things, people signed affidavits making representations that were untrue. This is fraud on the court. All of these foreclosures may be vacated. Corrupt people in Congress and corrupt regulators cannot intervene for the banks this time. Banks have to face state courts, and many Attorneys General are happy to take them on. Banks that committed fraud on the court do not get a do-over. Even if they can show up later with correct documents, it does not erase the original crime of fraud on the court. Anyone who presented phony documents as evidence in court broke the law. Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray advised banks that engaged in fraud on the courts (by submitting falsified affidavits) to negotiate meaningful loan modifications. Jamie Dimon’s Evasion Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said that JPMorgan did not foreclose on people who didn’t deserve it. Dimon was dismissive saying JPMorgan might have to pay some penalties, but it should just carry on with foreclosures. JPMorgan’s third quarter 2010 report contradicts its CEO: “But the financial statement itself proved the lie. The bank said it was carefully checking 115,000 mortgage affidavits. It set aside a whopping $1.3 billion for legal costs. And it put an extra $1 billion into a now $3 billion fund for buying back bunk mortgages and mortgage products.” ” Too Big to Fail Rears its Head Again ,” by Annie Lowrey, Washington Independent , October 14, 2010. JPMorgan’s role in alleged foreclosure fraud had already been made public when Dimon made these ill-considered statements. In a CNBC interview , Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray retorted to baseless claims made by Ally Bank, formerly known as GMAC Bank, which was bailed out by TARP. Ally said that it didn’t know of instances of improper foreclosures. Cordray shot back that every foreclosure done with falsified affidavits was improper. It’s fraud on the courts. He stated that as yet, no one knows the scope, but it could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of instances of fraud on the court. The fact that this happened repeatedly doesn’t make it more excusable, it makes it worse. Ally Bank, Bank of America, and JPMorgan have admitted to this practice. Apparently they had “fraud as a business model.” The good news for banks is that Richard Cordray was not reelected to the post of Ohio’s Attorney General. The bad news for banks–and the good news for Ohio–is that Cordray may become an Ohio Supreme Court Justice. Robert Rubin Dodges Responsibility The Economist’s Buttonwood Gathering in New York on October 25 featured Robert Rubin, former senior advisor of Citigroup (also former Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, and former Co-Chair of Goldman Sachs) as head of the first panel. He led a role-play about what might happen if one of the United States defaulted on its debt in the year 2013. States cannot declare bankruptcy, but neither Rubin nor any other panel member mentioned it. Instead of putting states on notice now that they have to get their budgets in order–even if it means cutting back on promises–the panel suggested that the Federal Government should bail out the states. When it came time for Q&A, I asked the first question and framed it by pointing out the irony of this panel discussing a potential state default and systemic risk. While many states have been fiscally irresponsible, their distress is now acute due to fraudulent lending further damaging the economy leading to reduced tax revenues. Moreover, weak states also have higher borrowing costs, since municipal bond insurers’ credit ratings imploded after they sold credit default swap (CDS) protection on value destroying securitizations (CDOs). Rubin’s Citigroup bought credit default swap protection from Ambac, one of the two largest municipal bond insurers, on Citi’s value destroying mortgage backed securitizations. During Rubin’s watch as Citigroup’s “risk wizard,” Ambac sold protection on Citi’s toxic CDOs including Diversey Harbor ($1.875 billion), Ridgeway Court Funding I ($1.57 billion), Ridgeway Court Funding II ($1.95 billion), Adams Square II ($510 million), 888 Funding ($500 million), Class V Funding III ($500 million). Citi settled many of these contracts with Ambac for deep discounts. (The Fed did not have taxpayers’ interests in mind when it settled AIG’s transactions with Goldman Sachs and others for 100 cents on the dollar.) Ambac filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 8, 2010, two weeks after Rubin’s shameful performance on this panel. Robert Rubin didn’t express an ounce of regret (or context) for his role in the crisis. On the contrary, he was insufferably smug. In his opening remarks, Rubin self-servingly asserted that no one could foresee the crisis in 2007, despite ample public evidence to the contrary. Citigroup and Ambac never came up. . (See also ” Congress’s FCIC Nearly Nailed Former Citigroup Executives to the Wall – Then Blew It ,” Huffington Post , April 8, 2010.) David Fry and Janet Tavakoli (November 2, 2010) discuss a range of issues from foreclosure fraud, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America/Countrywide, and public denials and revisionist history by Robert Rubin. Correction: During the course of this interview, I incorrectly stated that Laura Tyson had been on Ambac’s Board. She is on the Boards of Morgan Stanley, AT&T, and Eastman Kodak.

Read the full article →

WATCH: The Funniest Take On The Federal Reserve You’ll Ever See

November 12, 2010

For probably the first time ever, monetary policy has become hilarious. In a new video , two characters discuss the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy, presenting it as a desperate and hopelessly misguided effort to save the world economy (hat tip to Credit Writedowns ). The short film, made in Xtranormal and featuring two “pawz” characters, lays out the Fed’s $900 billion asset-purchase plan in simple, if imprecise, terms. “The Ben Bernake” (they pronounce it “Ber-nank”) is working with “the Goldman Sachs” to engage in “the printing money,” the video says. But the Fed can’t call it that: “‘The printing money’ is the last refuge of failed economic empires and banana republics, and the Fed doesn’t want to admit this is their only idea.” The character in the striped shirt has some choice words for Fed chairmen, past and present. “So has the Fed ever been right about anything?,” his associate asks. “Let me see if I can think of anything,” the striped-shirt pawz responds. Pause . “No. Nothing.” WATCH below:

Read the full article →

Goldman: New Banks Rules Will Hurt ‘Small’ Corporations

November 12, 2010

Requirements that banks hold more cash to prevent against economic downturns won’t just hurt the banks themselves, but also the companies they lend to, Goldman Sachs says in a new report . Rules that require banks to keep a certain percentage of their assets as rainy-day capital will be, and already have been, a drag on the overall corporate world, the report , principally authored by Goldman analyst Richard Ramsden, says (hat tip to Politico’s Morning Money ). “Small- and mid-sized” companies that have relied on bank financing will be hit hardest, the report says. Under the international Basel III requirements agreed on in September, banks will eventually (by 2019) have to keep the equivalent of 8.5 percent of their assets on hand, to guard against a crisis. As Goldman notes in the report, the actual percentages could be higher, depending on a particular country’s rules. Goldman’s argument goes like this: the new rules will mean banks can’t extend as many loans, which drive loan prices higher. Demand for the loans, the report says, suffers, and “smaller” corporate borrowers, which can’t issue bonds as easily as their larger cousins, are hit hardest. From the report: “These firms are likely to grow more slowly than the larger firms and multinationals that enjoy more flexibility in financing. Slower growth among smaller and mid-sized firms may act as an overhang on economic growth and the job creation that these firms traditionally propel. And because the adjustment to higher prices and constraints on credit availability is a dynamic process, the potential ongoing rise in capital requirements means that smaller firms are likely to bear the cost for some time to come, acting as a continuing drag on bank loan growth.” According to the report, these so-called smaller companies include Genzyme, Symantec, Adobe and eBay. As Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit argued last month at The Economist ‘s Buttonwood Gathering, high requirements could throw a wet blanket on the economy. “There is a point at which more is not necessarily better,” he said, referring to capital requirements. “Double-digit ratios will have direct negative impacts on lending, capital formation, aggregate demand and growth.” But experts outside the financial community disagree. Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England (that country’s central bank), said last month that even the higher requirements won’t be high enough. “Even the new levels of capital are insufficient to prevent another crisis,” King said. “Some of the calculations of the alleged economic costs of higher capital requirements presented by the industry seem to be highly exaggerated.” What’s more, evidence suggests that companies are in a relatively strong position. Despite the reported cost of borrowing from Goldman, the near-zero main interest rate makes most corporate borrowing extremely cheap. As of the end of last month, U.S. companies held about $1 trillion in cash . Many of them are choosing to hoard, rather than spend, that cash, a defensive tactic that bolsters their position, to the detriment, experts say, of the larger economy.

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Suspends Foreclosures In Some States

November 9, 2010

(By Maria Aspan and Maureen Bavdek) – Goldman Sachs Group Inc’s mortgage servicing unit has suspended evictions and foreclosures in some states, according to a regulatory filing on Tuesday. Goldman has been reviewing the practices of its Litton Loan Servicing unit after regulators and states attorneys general asked for information about its practices, as part of an industry-wide probe into banks’ foreclosure practices, the firm said. “Litton has temporarily suspended evictions and foreclosure and real estate owned sales in a number of states, including those with judicial foreclosure procedures,” Goldman said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday. Goldman said it has not found evidence of any foreclosures that were unwarranted, and that it does not expect its foreclosure suspension “to lead to a material increase in its mortgage servicing-related advances.” Goldman’s shares were up less than 1 percent at $170.44 in mid-morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. (Reporting by Maria Aspan, editing by Maureen Bavdek) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

What Domino’s Has In Common With Goldman & AIG

November 8, 2010

With the logos of Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Fannie Mae, Bank of America, and AIG on display behind him, Colbert applauded Domino’s “for joining the great American corporate tradition of screwing your customers and then having the balls to ask them to come back for more.” Turns out that Domino’s had something else in common with these ethically challenged entities, aside from the dubious products they dumped on unwitting dupes.

Read the full article →

Video: Hatzius Expects Slightly Higher Unemployment for 2011

November 5, 2010

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) — Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., talks about the U.S. labor market and economic outlook. Hatzius speaks with Deirdre Bolton on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: FBR’s Miller Sees `New Normal’ for U.S. Bank Earnings

October 27, 2010

Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) — Paul Miller, a managing director at FBR Capital Markets Corp., and Dawn Kopecki of Bloomberg News talk about the outlook for bank earnings. Shrinking revenue at U.S. banks, led by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc., may continue to fall as the industry heads into what could be its slowest period of growth since the Great Depression. Miller and Kopecki speak with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Phillips Says Middle Class Tax Threshold Could Change: Video

October 22, 2010

Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) — Alec Phillips, economist at Goldman Sachs, talks about the outlook for the extension of Bush-era tax cuts as the U.S. prepares for midterm elections. Phillips talks with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →