night

MADISON, WIS. — Russ Feingold may no longer be in elected office, but he can still excite crowds of labor protesters who have rallied at the state’s capitol for days with virtually no appearances by prominent politicians. And he wants other public figures who say they support workers to come out and join him. With momentum and attention building, labor organizers anticipated that Friday’s turnout would be the highest yet. By the time Feingold arrived around 11:00 a.m., thousands of people already swarmed the capitol, with many back from protesting earlier in the week or having even spent the night in the building’s rotunda. The balconies looking down into the rotunda were nearly impassible, and crowds marched around outside readying for the noon rally. Feingold went to the local fire station and brought its firefighters with him to the capitol. When he arrived, protesters cheered and some even broke into chants of “Feingold for Governor.” “I just feel enormous pride in the people of Wisconsin who are coming together — whether union or anti-union — for the rights of workers,” Feingold said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “This state is one of the originators of many of the workers’ rights and protections on child labor, unemployment compensation, and almost all kinds of workers’ rights. The fact that our governor is trying to destroy those rights is something worth fighting against. And I, of course, as a citizen of Wisconsin, somebody who knows the state very well, was proud to just show up and keep my support.” While President Obama has criticized Walker’s proposal, which would strip away the collective bargaining rights of public employees, he has yet to make an appearance. Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, the state’s one remaining Democratic U.S. senator, has put out a cursory statement on the protests but has not taken a visible role. Dawn Schueller, a spokesperson for Kohl, said the senator has received more than 450 phone calls and 1,900 emails regarding the protests and Walker’s proposal. Kohl is traveling to Wisconsin from Washington, D.C. on Friday, although she didn’t yet have details on his schedule for next week. Feingold said he believed any politician who purports to be pro-labor should be out in Madison. “I can’t imagine somebody who has supported labor and has the support of working people in the state wouldn’t want to at least appear at some point,” said Feingold. “It’s a very meaningful and very difficult effort against one of the most mean-spirited things I’ve seen in a long time. I know people are busy, but to me it was gratifying to see everyone working this hard against something that’s really terribly wrong. It’s very inspiring.” This week, Feingold launched Progressives United , a political action committee focused on combating corporate influence in politics . He pointed to the protests as the type of solution Progressives United is all about. “This is the kind of grassroots will overcome the power grab corporate America is now seeking to get,” he said.

Continued here:
Russ Feingold Rallies Protesters In Wisconsin

{ 0 comments }

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — During the housing crash, it was good to be a foreclosure king. David Stern was Florida’s top foreclosure lawyer, and he lived like an oil sheik. He piled up a collection of trophy properties, glided through town in a fleet of six-figure sports cars and, with his bombshell wife, partied on an ocean cruiser the size of a small hotel. When homeowners fell behind on their mortgages, the banks flocked to “foreclosure mills” like Stern’s to push foreclosures through the courts on their behalf. To his megabank clients – Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, GMAC, Citibank and Wells Fargo – Stern was the ultimate Repo Man. At industry gatherings, Stern bragged in his boyish voice of taking mortgages from the “cradle to the grave.” Of the federal government’s disastrous homeowner relief plan, which was supposed to keep people from getting evicted, he quipped: “Fortunately, it’s failing.” The worse things got for homeowners, the better they got for Stern. That is, until last fall, when the nation’s foreclosure machine blew apart and Stern’s gilded world came undone. Within a few months, Stern went from being the subject of a gushing magazine profile to being the subject of a Florida investigation, class-action lawsuits and blogger Schadenfreude that, at last long, the “foreclosure king” was dead. “What Stern represents is an industry that was completely unrestrained, unchecked, unpunished and unsupervised,” says Florida defense attorney Matt Weidner. “This was business gone wild.” The rise and fall of Stern, now 50, provides an inside look at how the foreclosure industry worked in the last decade – and how it fell apart. It also shows how banks, together with their law firms, built a quick-and-dirty foreclosure machine that was designed to take as many houses as fast as possible. Not long ago, the world of back-office bank procedures was of little interest to the public. But revelations last fall about robo-signers powering through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day, without verifying a single sentence, changed all that. Today the banking industry’s eviction juggernaut is under intense scrutiny as allegations of systemic foreclosure fraud mount. The 50 state attorneys general are conducting a foreclosure industry probe. So are state and federal regulators. Class-action lawsuits are gathering force, and, with increasing frequency, state judges are tossing out foreclosure suits in favor of homeowners. The developments are prolonging the housing market depression, casting doubt on mortgage ownership and calling into question whether mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, backed by nothing at all. The Florida attorney general’s economic crimes division is investigating three law firms, including Stern’s, over allegations that they created fraudulent legal documents, gouged homeowners with inflated fees, steered business to companies they owned and filed foreclosures without proving the bank actually had a legal interest in the loan. Florida authorities characterize the foreclosure process at these law firms as a “virtual morass” of “fake documents” and depicted Stern’s operations as something akin to the TV show “Lost” – only instead of people that went missing, it was paperwork. Stern’s employees churned out bogus mortgage assignments, faked signatures, falsified notarizations and foreclosed on people without verifying their identities, the amounts they owed or who owned their loans, according to employee testimony. The attorney general is also looking at whether Stern paid kickbacks to big banks. “There’s a David Stern in every state, sometimes more than one,” says Jacksonville Legal Aid attorney April Charney, who has successfully stopped foreclosure for hundreds of Florida families. Stern denied repeated requests for comment. He did not answer inquiries at his office or at his main residence in Fort Lauderdale. Stern’s lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, agreed to an interview in late December at his Miami office, then canceled it the night before without further comment. Stern’s story, starting with his law degree in 1986 from the South Texas College of Law, can be pieced together through thousands of pages of court documents, myriad depositions and scores of interviews. After working at a law firm for mortgage lenders, Stern started his own practice in Fort Lauderdale in 1994. Four years later, he got a massive break: the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, a government-backed agency that provides market stability for mortgage lenders, named Stern to its exclusive attorney network. That meant Fannie directed banks to use Stern’s firm when foreclosing in Florida. Fannie also named Stern Attorney of the Year in 1998 and 1999. Employees from that era remember an office that liked to party together. Stern enjoyed dressing up for his office bashes. One time he sauntered on stage turned out like Michael Jackson. Almost from the beginning, Stern faced trouble. In 1998, he was named in a class-action lawsuit alleging that he padded fees on foreclosed homeowners. Stern settled for $2.2 million. According to legal testimony at the time from a Fannie Mae official, Fannie was warned about troubles at the Stern firm. But Fannie continued referring cases to Stern. Fannie Mae spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus says, “At all times, Fannie Mae has had a reasonable expectation that our servicers and the law firms adhere to proper procedures and conduct under the law. In instances where we learn that servicers or law firms are not adhering to our requirements or applicable law, we immediately engage and take appropriate action, which may include termination.” Soon after, Stern was sued again, this time for sexual harassment. A former paralegal alleged that Stern created a “sexually-laden” atmosphere in which he routinely “touched and grabbed and subjected to simulated intercourse” his employees. Stern settled that suit in 2000 for an undisclosed amount. By this time, lawyers and homeowner activists were also warning lenders, federal regulators and the Florida Bar about Stern. In 2002, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded Stern for submitting “potentially misleading” fee affidavits. None of the accusations stalled the firm’s steroidal growth. After the economy crashed in the fall of 2008 and ravaged the housing market, Florida, along with Nevada, Arizona and California, became foreclosure central. Stern’s caseload rose from 15,000 foreclosures in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009. His staff tripled to more than 1,200. To keep up with demand, Stern set up offices in the Philippines. When the U.S. staff responsible for entering bank data in the foreclosure files logged off, the offshore workers logged on. Revenue swelled from $41 million in 2006 to $260 million in 2009, according to an SEC filing. The firm moved into a plush, marble-floored headquarters near Miami that was all glass and fountains. By now Stern was driving a Bugatti and had bought at least $60 million in property, including a 16,000-square-foot island compound that sits behind two security gates. But all the paperwork Stern’s firm was cranking out to make this fortune would soon come back to haunt him. The foreclosure business is a volume game. Banks typically pay law firms like Stern’s about $1,400 for each successful foreclosure. But the banks can pay a lot less if the firm doesn’t successfully foreclose within a certain time frame, usually around six months. With so many foreclosures flooding in, Stern’s firm couldn’t keep up. Stern took shortcuts by hiring the young and cheap. “The girls would come out on the floor not knowing what they were doing,” says Tammie Lou Kapusta, who worked in Stern’s foreclosure department in 2008 and 2009. “Mortgages would get placed in different files. They would get thrown out. There was just no real organization when it came to original documents.” Employee depositions paint a picture of a firm under constant pressure from the banks to move faster. The longer it took to foreclose, the more money the banks stood to lose. Like so many in the industry, Stern had a strategy to cope with all the volume and velocity: robo-signing. One employee testified that Stern’s chief lieutenant, a one-time file clerk named Cheryl Samons who rose to become the firm’s chief operating officer, signed as many as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a day without reading a single word. The employee said Samons’ hand got so tired that she told three other employees to forge her signature. Samons also signed numerous mortgage assignments with a notary stamp that didn’t even exist at the time of signing. Notary stamps are only valid for four years. The only way Samons could have signed mortgage assignments at the time they were supposedly notarized was if she had been capable of time travel. Stern rewarded Samons with a new BMW SUV every year, paid all her bills and took care of the mortgage payment on her home, according to testimony from two employees. Samons did not respond to request for comment. Billings surged. So did the dysfunction. Kapusta testified that she received 100 phone calls a day from people who never received their foreclosure notices or who wanted loan modifications but couldn’t get through to the banks. If she talked too long on the phone, Kapusta testified, Samons would yell at her. “Everything was about getting the judgment entered because we had to report to the banks,” Kapusta said. Stern battled to keep the chaos inside his firm a secret. In 2008 and 2009, whenever the Fannie Mae auditors were about to touch down in Miami for their routine monitoring, Stern’s employees sometimes toiled through the night, ripping the stickers and client codes off of Fannie files and replacing them with those of a different lender. Then, as an extra precaution, they hauled the disguised files to a remote back room. Stern then gave Fannie officials the white-glove treatment, with catered meals and chauffeuring. The incomplete files stayed hidden until the auditors left town. Fannie Mae’s Bonitatibus says that, “To our knowledge, no one at Fannie Mae has had their expenses paid by the Stern Law firm.” Early 2010 brought Stern’s biggest coup. He spun off a chunk of his business called DJSP that performed mortgage process services like title searches and lien monitoring and took it public. The deal reportedly made Stern $146 million, including $55 million cash. DJSP stock started trading in January at about $10 a share. Within months, battered by rumors of indiscretions at Stern’s firm, it was worth half. On July 20, two investors filed a securities-fraud class action alleging that Stern knowingly misled them by failing to disclose the problems within the business. “DJSP was a scam,” says Bill Warner, a Sarasota private eye who successfully defended himself against a foreclosure suit brought by Stern. At the end of July, Florida attorney Kenneth Trent, who had blocked Stern from foreclosing on a homeowner who was current on his mortgage, filed a federal lawsuit against Stern’s firm under a statute normally reserved for gangsters, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act–or RICO. Days later, the Florida attorney general launched an investigation against Stern’s firm and three other foreclosure mills. The AG’s arguments were similar to those brought in Trent’s class action. At first, Stern railed against the media, saying he would defend the company and its reputation against the allegations. Then, in September, he dropped out of sight. Equally elusive is Cheryl Samons, who is no longer with the firm. She left no contact information. In October, one by one, the megabanks started to withdraw their cases from Stern’s firm. Fannie fired Stern on Oct. 22. Stern’s staff of 1,200 has dwindled to 200. DJSP’s stock, worth as much as $13 in April, now trades for pennies. The firm’s fall has spawned more chaos in Florida’s circus-like foreclosure courts. A slew of homes Stern foreclosed on that sold for $240,000 each during the credit bubble sold at auction as orphaned cases for $200. Recently, even the most infamous “rocket docket,” in Lee County, where judges were reported to have signed off on a foreclosure every 30 seconds, ground to a virtual standstill as the Stern firm withdrew from case after case. Some of Stern’s remaining lawyers show up court with greasy hair, fleece jackets and food-stained clothing. As for Stern, if federal and state prosecutors file criminal charges, he could end up in prison. Meanwhile, Stern’s payment on his $12 million line of credit with Bank of America is late. So is the rent on his headquarters. He’s now in default.

Read the original here:
The Rise & Fall Of Florida’s Foreclosure King, David J. Stern

{ 0 comments }

At Brooklyn Law, A Tech-Focused Clinic Helps Startups Off The Ground

February 2, 2011

NEW YORK — Jonathan Askin is sporting a long faux-leather trench coat and a shaved head as he enters his first tech meet-up of the night. On the second floor of SoHo’s Scholastic building, the congregation is already underway. A table at the back of the room is strewn with delivery pizza, surrounded by networking techies shaking hands and chatting idly about venture funds, Silicon Alley, and location-based services. Passing through this dense crowd, Askin is simultaneously greeting and being greeted by friends, allies, acquaintances, and occasionally, former clients. His role is both ambassadorial and communal; as the founder and director of the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic , his is a well-known and welcome face. The clinic, or as it’s known, BLIP, is the culmination of Askin’s nearly two decade-long legal career. BLIP functions as a full service tech-oriented law firm leading its students through the full sweep of transactional law, policy and politics, technology and entrepreneurship necessary in a web-enabled world to provide pro-bono legal help to tech startups that really need it. The goal: training the lawyer 2.0 for the digital era. BLIP is a legal outpost on the boundary of old and new. As the world catches up to the web, companies, governments and ordinary web users are grappling with unfamiliar issues regarding privacy, transparency, communication and more. The current crop of attorneys have to deal with the overwhelming amount of information freely available on the web as well as the complicated — and unforeseen — legal quandaries that develop as a result. The startups BLIP assists will be the pioneers of future corporate structures, even as the innovations they introduce to the digital infrastructure continue to morph the human experience. “Lawyers are still the only people who use fax machines — a demonstration of our Luddite tendencies,” said Askin. “Change comes a lot slower to legal professions than the tech/entrepreneurship world. We’ve got to learn how to keep up. We’ve got to use the tools that other entrepreneurs have used.” Askin’s own career reflects the pattern for BLIP’s multifaceted approach. Born to two civil rights attorneys, Askin started his career in the same field, before he wearied of waging “trench warfare” to hold the line on issues, which, as he put it, “had been fought 30 years ago.” Then, the Internet came along. “This is a moment that a young lawyer hasn’t seem since the Civil Rights Act,” he remembers thinking. “We’re going to create new law that is going to change the course of history for the next few decades if not longer. We are writing the laws that will shape our digital future.” After leaving civil rights law, Askin began to move towards tech-related law, putting in time at the Federal Communications Commission, out in California working directly for startups, and playing a role in President Obama’s tech task force during the election. “I was in D.C. and I was a policy advocate and I thought I was a tech attorney. We weren’t tech attorneys. We were lobbyists who knew a little bit of the jargon,” he said. “I started working with tech startups — everything they know is operations and transactions — they don’t know the first thing about policy or politics. It’s very difficult for any attorney to represent the needs of a tech startup.” BLIP is Askin’s attempt to fill the void of lawyers fully equipped with the range of experience necessary to work in the tech startup world. In many ways, BLIP offers Askin the opportunity to share what he’s learned with law students about to start careers in a web-saturated world. “Every single disparate thread in my life had a very circuitous legal path that has inevitably led me to exactly where I am right now,” he said. “I was a dilettante — a smattering of policy, a smattering of transactional, a smattering of civil rights work, but without having had that circuitous path, I’d be a little too myopic myself. Now I feel like I’m the blended mashed-up attorney that I’d like to see a lot of my students become.” Or, as current clinician Jameson Dempsey described it: “BLIP is Askin, Askin is BLIP.” Dempsey is one of the two students who have followed him out this night, though seminar ended just an hour before, and law school offers no extra credit. But this kind of immersion in startup culture is important for any tech-minded lawyer. “He’s actually the first professor I’ve ever had to assign a blog roll,” said Dempsey. “Which I thought was really cool.” At the second meet-up, the techies amble around with beers in hand, or sit quietly with their iPads. The moderator asks everyone to introduce themselves by name, interest, and Twitter handle. Askin and his students comply on all three counts; attorneys you can tweet at. “It’s his vision that leaves fingerprints all over it. What he’s opened the students up to is incredible,” said Tom Chernaik, who worked with BLIP on a startup called CMP.LY , “He’s such a fixture in the New York scene. A true lifeline into the New York tech scene is something these students are going to get out of him.” Through these meet-ups, BLIP has fostered relationships with a number of startups and tech professionals, finding a number of prospective clients in the process. One of the clients BLIP reached through the scene is MainStreetSocial . Helping local governments monetize their websites with online advertisements, as well as to leverage social media to improve contact with constituents, MainStreetSocial has had to deal with both the ordinary business of starting a company as well as with broader issues involving the legality of selling ads on government sites. Ryan O’Donnell, one of the founders of MainStreetSocial, first heard Askin speak at a tech event. “Jonathan was at the entrepreneurs roundtable and I heard him say, ‘At BLIP we do X, Y and Z for startup companies — if you’re interested find a way to get in touch with us’” he said. O’Donnell immediately found a way to connect with Askin, who took the initial meeting. “Thirty seconds into the conversation, I went through my quick elevator pitch of what we did, what our challenges were, and he got very excited,” O’Donnell recounted. “He goes, ‘I have what I think would be the perfect team for you.’ I’m going to tell them about you and I want you to come back in and meet with them.” The students helped O’Donnell with research, and drafted a legal memorandum. “We were then able to take it out to current clients, as well as prospective clients and say, ‘Here’s a memorandum that says, yes you can put advertisements on your websites if you follow these criteria,’” he said. “It’s the first time I’ve encountered anything like that.” For the students in the BLIP clinic, working with real clients is a major part of the appeal. With Askin as a pedagogical guide, students are deployed into real legal work for clients facing tricky issues ranging from drafting privacy policy, to incorporation, to wider policy related questions. And as the startups they work with grow into full-fledged companies, other benefits present themselves as well. “Once we do get to scale and are a larger company, that’s the first place I’m going to look when making internal hires for legal counsel within the company,” said O’Donnell. BLIP’s students are just as dedicated as their professor. BLIP has no room for the half-hearted. As the most popular clinic at Brooklyn Law, no first-year students are admitted, and almost no one is admitted on their first application. Even so, the size of the clinic is twice that of the next largest clinic in the country. There’s no doubt that part of the clinic’s draw is the chance to work under Askin. “He has a million ideas and he has a million projects he wants to work on and one person can only work on so many projects,” said Dempsey. “And so having twenty students who are really gung-ho about making a difference in the community, about learning more about tech law, about experiencing the breadth of the projects that we have in the clinic allows him to realize a lot of his visions … and the man has vision.” But apart from his position as professor, Askin also seems to infect his students with his overarching notion that the work BLIP does is truly the work of the future. “I see his role as very much inspirational, the guru, the person you go to, the person who just drives you on a day-to-day basis, who says, ‘Remember what we’re doing here, we’re trying to develop these skills,’” said Julie Adler, another clinician. “It’s more about the greater mission, and he’s always trying to keep our sights on that mission.”

Read the full article →

Lobster In The Mountains, Riots On The Nile

January 29, 2011

(Reuters) – The global elite, dining on Norwegian lobster and reindeer at the end of the World Economic Forum on Saturday, felt pretty chipper despite growing concerns about the inequality of the economic recovery. While they believe the global financial and euro zone debt crises are abating, the real world intruded with a different and much more acute crisis in Egypt that made their debates about inequality and food security less theoretical than anticipated. This year’s four-day talkfest in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos was a fragmented affair. The issue expected to dominate discussion, the euro zone debt crisis, turned out to be a relatively damp squib, with a growing consensus among bankers and policymakers that a resolution of the issue may be near. If there was one common strand in Davos this year it was growing divisions — whether between fast-growing emerging markets and sluggish developed world economies, or between rich and poor within countries. As residents in Cairo and Alexandria counted the cost of a further night of clashes between protesters and police on Saturday, politicians and business leaders urged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to start a dialogue with his people. The corporate world is nervous. Egypt has, after all, been one of the darlings of African and Middle Eastern investors, and the world is stepping into unknown territory with the rapid spread of unrest from country to country, propelled by the Internet and mobile technology. LESSON OF EGYPT “The lesson from Egypt is clear: people will no longer accept oppression, particularly when oppression is married with rising food prices, a lack of employment and the destruction of hope for a young generation,” Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, told Reuters. Yet the mood among 2,500 business leaders and policy-makers in Davos was still predominantly positive, albeit tempered with caution after the worst economic slump in 75 years. “Compared to last year and the year before, there is certainly much greater confidence about stability, more optimism about the global economic outlook,” said the International Monetary Fund’s first deputy managing director John Lipsky. For many CEOs and bankers, there is simply the reassurance of having put yet another year’s distance between themselves and the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, which brought the world economy to the brink. As a result, the panicky mood evident at the last two annual meetings in Davos has evaporated and business bosses are starting to look again at spending the trillions of dollars of cash sitting on their balance sheets. “It is quite obvious that the mood has changed. Everybody is much calmer,” said Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg. “You see it in the meetings, without people speaking on their telephones or leaving the room or having to stand in the corner, having very difficult conversations.” As ever, this year’s Davos was an eclectic mix, covering everything from macroeconomics to geopolitics to management theory to science. But there was no single, dominant theme — and Adair Turner, chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority, reckons that, perhaps, is the most encouraging sign of all. “It is a thoroughly good thing because when the world gets gripped by one big theme it usually either means there’s a big disaster or else people are getting in the grip of some new irrational exuberance,” he said. (Additional reporting by Emma Thomasson and Dmitry Zhdannikov; editing by Michael Stott and Mark Heinrich) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Video: Schanzer Says Educated Classes Driving Egypt Protests

January 28, 2011

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) — Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, talks about protests in Egypt and the Middle East. Egyptian protesters clashed with police throughout the country and into the night, defying a curfew and setting fire to some buildings, in the biggest challenge to President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule. Schanzer talks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Mr. President, Americans Agree On Social Security; So Talk to Us, Not Washington

January 13, 2011

Mr. President, you moved a nation today with your words in Tucson. “Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame,” you said, “let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” You also said this: “It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” Two weeks from now the State of the Union address will be an opportunity to bring Americans together — Americans who have been bitterly divided by party loyalty and ideology, but who stand united in their support for the social programs that have improved our lives for the past seventy-five years. On that night, will they know that somebody has heard them? Will they feel that someone is talking to them? Will they feel they have a voice inside the Capitol rotunda, in a city where they sometimes seem to have been forgotten? There’s a popular idea in Washington that I’ve — perhaps too harshly — called “the Third Way Fallacy.” It essentially says we can end the harsh and divisive nature of today’s politics by having Washington party leaders work out their differences in private. Some of us think that’s the wrong way to go about the people’s business — that a truly “bipartisan” approach must respect the opinions of each party’s members , not just those of its leaders. But whatever my past criticisms of Third Way, the organization had a terrific suggestion today for increasing civility in politics. In an open letter to Speaker Boehner, they suggested that the Congressional seating chart be changed for this year’s State of the Union address so that members aren’t separated by party. “We do not see any purpose behind putting Democrats on one side of the floor and Republicans on the other,” Third Way’s letter said. “The spectacle of one side of the room leaping to its feet while the other sits glumly on its hands is just that — a spectacle. Perhaps having both parties sit together, intermingled, would help control the choreography of partisanship that accompanies the President’s remarks.” This idea is smart, moving, and even beautiful. The State of the Union has turned into an annual circus, as you know far better than I. Americans want more statesmanship in Washington, and this would be a symbolic way of letting them know they’ve been heard. The Speaker would bring honor to himself and his institution if he took this suggestion. It would, in Third Way’s words, “demonstrate what is true but not always apparent — that we are one nation, not two, and that Members are unified by their service to our country.” Mr. Boehner is famous for crying in public, but if he follows this suggestion maybe we’ll cry instead. It might be good for the country if more of us shared the burden of tears. But the business at hand won’t just be symbolic. As you know, Mr. President, leaders of both political parties have been talking about Social Security cuts. Your own Deficit Commission came up with some very Draconian (and unpopular) ideas, and members of your Administration haven’t committed to defending retirement benefits. There are even rumors that people in your Administration have floated trial balloons about cutting a deal with Republicans to raise the retirement age and make other cuts. Inside the Beltway there’s some “bipartisan” approval for those ideas. But outside Washington the real bipartisan consensus is even stronger: Large majorities of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike — agree that Social Security must be defended, not cut. Mr. President, I hope you’ll have the chance to see the poll numbers on Social Security. We know you’ve said you won’t govern by following polls, and we respect that. But it’s moving and inspiring to see the way Americans of all political parties have joined together in their defense of Social Security. They speak with one voice about how to handle it: Raise the payroll tax cap and protect its current benefits. They’re equally united in their defense of Medicare in similarly large numbers. These are the people’s programs, and people of all political persuasions want them protected. We know that Americans don’t like party squabbling. But that doesn’t mean they want the two parties to collaborate on policies that rank-and-file members of both parties have rejected. Voters mean exactly what they’ve told those pollsters for years: They want Washington politicians to work for them , not each other. They’ll be watching on January 25 to see their leaders speak to them, or to each other. When asked how we should cut the deficit, Americans would rather raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security by more than two to one. These Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — make up the New Silent Majority, and they speak with a single voice. To paraphrase Third Way, when they talk about Social Security they demonstrate what is true but not always apparent — that we are one nation, not two. This bipartisan consensus has the unwavering support of non -partisan experts, too — experts like Harry C. Ballantyne, who was appointed Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration under Ronald Reagan. Mr. Ballantyne and two respected economists wrote a paper that explains how the bipartisan preference for Social Security — keep benefits and raise the payroll tax cap — addresses that program’s very modest long-term shortfall. There will be many people in the room with you who want to make these cuts anyway, Mr. President. Despite the great benefits that have flowed to the wealthiest among us, they’ll want to protect the wealthy from paying the same payroll tax rate as police officers or nurses. These differences of opinion are unavoidable in a democracy. But you’ll have an opportunity to show the nation how its leaders can differ with courtesy and grace — and in this case, with a bipartisan majority at your back. You’ll be able explain that you’re not defending Social Security because you speak for Democrats, but because you speak for all Americans. While you’re at it, you can also defend the principles of trust and honesty. Too many politicians and pundits have said that the government’s bonds, which cover the money it has borrowed from Social Security’s Trust Fund, is just an “IOU.” That’s not true. And you can remind them that even if it were true, we’re an honorable people who make good on our IOUs. There isn’t a single argument being thrown around today about Social Security that hasn’t been around for 75 years: “Ponzi scheme,” too many old people and too few workers — you name it, we’ve heard it before. That’s why President Eisenhower’s bipartisan panel refuted them all back in the 1950s. Ike’s experts defended our shared hopes and dreams back then, and now it’s our generation’s turn. You also said that in a time of tragedy “we reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent… Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us?” What better way of expressing gratitude to all of our aging parents than by ensuring their financial security? That’s an ideal way to “expand our moral imaginations, listen to each other more carefully, sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” Our moral imaginations shouldn’t be limited to slanted ideas cooked up in think tanks and parroted by pundits and consultants. Sometimes listening to one another, really listening, means we have to silence the clamor of Beltway chatter. Our instincts for empathy can be sharpened by the image of an elderly woman in a small urban apartment, struggling to get by on $800 per month. They should direct our thoughts to the 68-year-old janitor whose back aches after half a century spent pushing a broom. They should call us to remember the waitress whose feet can no longer support her for eight hours, and whose bent fingers can no longer scribble on her order pad. We’ve been bound by shared dreams since the country was founded. Social Security and Medicare turned some of those dreams into reality. Let’s not turn them back into dreams. Mr. President, this year’s State of the Union will help to shape your legacy. That legacy can be one of real bipartisanship. You can bring us together as a people by expressing our shared commitment to Social Security. That’s a commitment that binds Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and even Tea Party followers together in a common bond. Reach out for that bond. Express it. Build on it to create a new American consensus – a consensus for fairness, a consensus for security, a consensus for growth and jobs. Americans are united on the issue of Social Security, and the state of that union is sound. At least in one small way, we’re already bound together in our hopes and dreams. In a wounded moment, that bond can help us heal. Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

New Trend: Not Paying The Bill, And ‘Free Swiping’

January 12, 2011

Hard times for New Yorkers means inventive ways of cutting back — like stealing meals and subway rides! At least that is the trend we are reading about today, as two reports of civil disobedience (or one, if you don’t count flat-out stealing as something Thoreau would have condoned) are becoming trends in the city. The New York Post says that in 2010, there was a huge increase in reports of those who bailed on a check at a restaurant. Eating in a restaurant and leaving without paying the tab — known in police parlance as “theft of service” — rose almost 20 percent in the city last year, up from 315 arrests in 2009 to 376 in 2010, according to the NYPD. Of course, those numbers don’t include the many scofflaws who successfully “lick and split.” The Post tells the story of a well-dressed man who bought five martinis at Union Square’s posh Coffee Shop. He told his waitress he left his wallet in his car, and never came back. Or the drunk 20-something who racked up a $300 bill at BB Kings, but “it wasn’t until they saw a pedicab passing by that they decided the night’s bill would be on the house.” Explaining, “Sometimes you’re drunk or, I don’t know . . . ” Why the sudden spike in service theft? Russia Today seems to have the answer. With falling wages, cuts in benefits, and alarming public transportation fare hikes, New Yorkers are fighting back with their own brand of economic disobedience. The video below is about the People’s Transportation Program, an organization that is purchasing unlimited Metrocards and giving people free rides as a protest to the recent MTA fare increase ($104 for a monthly unlimited!). Though perhaps a more common loophole in the Unlimited are those who ride the subway in tandem and share a Metrocard, waiting fifteen minutes before swiping the same Metrocard again. [ VIA ] WATCH:

Read the full article →

Peggy McColl: Your Invisible Sales Force

January 8, 2011

It is always easier and usually more enjoyable to earn new business when someone recommends you. Great referrals come from your free sales force — your raving fans. These fans are out doing business development for you without you knowing and often without you even asking. The shortest distance between you and your next referral is how you treat your current clientele. As a business person it should be part of your conscious effort to serve your clients with more enthusiasm and more care. It is the old adage of “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Take for instance life coaches. There are a lot of coaches in the market and the best are the ones you will stick with forever because of the way they treat you. I don’t think we should make our clients addicts of us to the point where they can’t write a few lines of copy, create a marketing concept or take action on an idea without consulting us first. That is not the point of supporting a client. But as a successful mentor or coach, you need to step up with more ideas and stretch yourself to provide new value for your clients. You have a responsibility to always bring your A game. For instance, I have certain rules about my commitment to bring my best to every meeting. If I have a day full of client calls I take that time very seriously and will not go out late the night before. I plan my social calendar around my business calendar so as not to burn myself out. I want to be clearheaded out of respect for their trust and confidence. You also need to be willing to customize your services to accommodate larger groups or specialized trainings . I think about what I teach in one of my standard programs and figure out how I can personalize it for different companies or audiences. These are things you need to do to continue creating raving fans. Do it not because there is an expectation your clients will go out and talk about you to everyone, but the truth is a majority of them will. Think about all the times you look for a professional… lawyer, hairdresser, plumber, etc. You are more apt to be satisfied with someone a friend trusts, not to mention how much easier it is than letting your fingers do the walking through a directory or search engine. Make sure you are top of mind with your clients by always showing how much you care. Peggy McColl is a New York Times best-selling author and an internationally recognized expert in the field of personal and professional development and Internet marketing. As an entrepreneur, business owner, mentor and professional speaker Peggy has been inspiring individuals to pursue their personal and business objectives and achieve ultimate success. She provides effective Internet marketing solutions for entrepreneurs, authors, publishers, professionals, and business owners, who want to establish an online presence, achieve bestseller status, build their brand, grow and/or expand their business online. You can find out more about Peggy at her website, Destinies.com.

Read the full article →

Video: Bibb Says `Monday Night Football’ Deal a `Coup’ for ESPN

January 7, 2011

Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC, talks about reports that Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN cable sports network is close to an agreement to secure broadcast rights for “Monday Night Football.” Sports Business Daily reported that ESPN may pay $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion a year over nine or 10 years for broadcast rights to the program. Bibb speaks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: The GOP and the Banks: Cutting the Garlic Budget as the Vampires Attack

December 22, 2010

Van Helsing: “The strength of the vampire is that nobody will believe in him.” America’s debt to Wall Street has soared since 1945 — and although the banks were rescued at the public’s expense, the public’s been left holding the bag for the recent drop in housing prices: Hmm… How many times has the word “vampire” appeared in books during the same period [1]? What does this mean? Does it reflect the public’s subconscious response to predatory banking? Or is it just some guy having nerdy fun with data sets by juxtaposing two trend lines that have nothing to do with one another? We report, you decide. Here’s what we do know: Like their fictional counterparts, America’s banks are revenants, re-animated creatures who were brought back from the dead through the public’s generosity. Now they’re feasting on the rest of us again, while politicians in Washington work to rob us of the few tools we can use to defend ourselves. With some Democratic complicity, Republicans are fulfilling the promise of Rep. Spencer Bachus, who said that “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks .” And what they’re serving them is you . The Count: “Listen to them! The creatures of the night. What music they make… ” The rap sheet against America’s banks grows longer and longer. They keep stringing people along with phony foreclosure negotiations, and then foreclose anyway. And we’re hearing more and more stories about bank agents who, as they’re invading and padlocking illegally foreclosed homes, also steal the private property inside them. In

Read the full article →

Submit A Video To Be Featured On HuffPost’s New Small Business Section

November 11, 2010

Today, The Huffington Post is beginning to collect stories from people who, having lost or quit their job, rolled the dice and started their own small business. We’re looking for entrepreneurs like Vincent Nasserbakht, a former financial analyst who realized one day that he was unhappy with his job in finance. Nasserbakht knew there was no promotion that could make him happier in the field he was in. “So I had to do my own thing,” he says. In the midst of the recession, Nasserbakht ditched Wall Street and fell back on what he had learned as a child growing up in a retail family. He started the Sock Hop, a sock and accessory store in downtown Manhattan. “I don’t really miss a steady pay check. I think that’s the hardest thing to leave and once you leave it, you realize you can do things without it,” Nasserbakht says. “I rely a lot on other people, but at the same time, that steady pay check holds you back as much as it does provide for you.” Watch Vincent Nasserbakht share his story and give advice to would-be entrepreneurs (Video reporting by Samira Nanda and Hunter Stuart): Nasserbakht took the leap voluntarily. But the recession has spawned a new wave of accidental entrepreneurs — those who have lost their jobs and, suddenly unable to find a job, have created their own . Like Dean Blackburn, who shares his story here: When the company used the economic downturn as an excuse to clean house of several new hires including myself, it hurt. I wasn’t being fired — but it still had that “dirty” feeling, that my fate was decided by a calculating few, who cared only about quarterly profit margins. That they timed my departure to forcibly reduce my covered health benefits only confirmed this in my eyes. I found myself in a highly competitive job market that wasn’t open to talking to those who didn’t already have a job … And instead of two weeks, I find myself closing in on two years of unemployment, with barely a phone interview each month to show for it. The further away my last departure date gets, the less likely it is that anyone will call me back. Having lived in the Bay Area for almost 10 years, it was a little strange that I have never worked for, or even applied to, a tech startup company. When I lucked into a free ticket to attend a startup pitch night in December of 2009, I had no idea what to expect. I finally took an opportunity to pitch a completely crazy notion I had, and I was shocked to discover my idea received the only standing ovation of the night. I had finally found my way ‘home.’ Since incorporating NaviDate , an online dating service, I’ve had many setbacks, doubts, and seen new competitors arise seemingly from nowhere. But apart from the perpetual jibes from well-meaning relatives and friends, the reaction and support from the startup community has been amazing. I may have arrived here accidentally, but I’ve always been an entrepreneur at heart — eager to explore possibilities, and take important risks to increase business performance. It’s just that. In this turbulent economy, the rewards of taking those risks on my own behalf are far greater than doing so in exchange for a hardly-stable paycheck, and dwindling benefits. Entrepreneurs: if you’ve launched a business after losing or quitting your job, please submit a 4-6 minute video to The Huffington Post telling about your experience. Please include information about what your small business does. Tell us what you did before you launched it, how you’ve financed it, how you made the difficult decision to dive into entrepreneurship, and include advice to those who are thinking about doing the same. The videos will be featured in future posts on Small Business America , Huff Post’s new blog about small business and entrepreneurship, and elsewhere on The Huffington Post . Please send your submissions to submissions+video@huffingtonpost.com. Whether your company is big or small, successful or struggling, online or offline, we want to hear about it. Tell us about your business in your e-mail, and we’ll get back to you with more details.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Condoleezza Rice – What a Procrastinator!

November 5, 2010

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveals in her new book, “A Memoir of My Extraordinary, Ordinary Family and Me” that she has battled with procrastination for most of her life. She says in her book, “Procrastination remains a problem for me to this day.” The obvious question is: How can someone so successful be a procrastinator? Successful people aren’t perfect; they almost always have some part of their makeup that needs work. Some people are charismatic in front of a live audience, yet struggle with speech writing. Others are amazingly productive despite their lack of organization. What many of these people do is find ways to compensate for the areas where they are weakest. For example, CEO’s who are habitually late and who counteract this by setting their watches ahead. Procrastination is another area that plagues a lot of accomplished people, yet they are able to pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat and complete the project every time. They do this by building in an adequate buffer to meet the deadline. Similar to “cramming” the night before a big exam, except they don’t cut it that close. There’s the “should due-date” and the “gotta due-date” and they don’t go beyond the latter. Their crunch time doesn’t ever put them in jeopardy of missing the deadline. Charles Schwab , John Chambers and Richard Branson all have dyslexia. None of them have let this hold them back evidenced by the fact that each has been a CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. Prominent attorney, David Boies , known for being a star litigator (represented the Government in Microsoft anti-trust case) also has dyslexia. Because of this, he has to commit more to memory than most lawyers because his dyslexia hinders him for glancing at note cards in the courtroom. The comedian and star of “Deal or No Deal,” Howie Mandel , has obsessive compulsive disorder and avoids at all costs shaking hands for fear of picking up germs. On his TV show he compensates for this by doing a fist bump with the contestants. David Neeleman , founder of JetBlue Airways, has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Unfortunately, ADHD prevents him from being detail-oriented and completing daily tasks, “I have an easier time planning a 20-aircraft fleet than I do paying the light bill.” Neeleman looks at the glass as “half-full”, saying that with his disorder comes greater creativity and he credits the success of his airline with his ability to think outside the box. Whatever you are personally struggling with in your life and career, there are ways to overcome it by working around it. Some people make the mistake of using these issues as a crutch, “I’ve never been a good writer” or “My organizational skills are bad,” or “I have don’t have the ability to focus,” and give themselves permission to be held back. Successful people have a mindset geared towards getting the results they want despite the obstacles. We look up to them and appreciate what they have achieved without realizing what they have to overcome on a daily basis. These people can give us the motivation to deal with whatever is currently holding us back and unleash our full potential. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Getting Medieval On Your Assets: Four Reasons Foreclosure Fraud Really, Really Matters

October 28, 2010

The current debate over foreclosure fraud has been a revelation, even for those of us who have become familiar with the power of moneyed interests to influence the national dialog. Despite overwhelming evidence of widespread lawbreaking and deception, there’s still a popular point of view that says that fraudulent foreclosures are “just a technicality” and that what we’re seeing is neither a systemic problem nor a crime wave of epidemic proportions. Actually, it’s both. Here are four reasons why the foreclosure fraud scandal is very important. They’re counterarguments to the conventional “paperwork” wisdom, a point of view whose numbing effects threaten to anesthetize us to the profound significance of this scandal. 1. Dragnet A recent New York Times article is just one of many that put names and faces to the foreclosure scandal: A man who paid cash for a vacation cabin found that foreclosure papers had been filed and his locks had been changed, despite the fact that there was no mortgage on the property. A couple was foreclosed upon — successfully — by a mortgage trust that court papers say doesn’t exist. A woman in Colorado also had her locks changed by mistake, so the bank offered to let her skip a mortgage payment as an apology. When she did, foreclosure papers were filed on her. The writers of the Times article also frame the counterargument: “Even if the paperwork was faulty, the fact remains that most homeowners in foreclosure have not paid their bills … ” That’s Argument #1 in favor of downplaying the foreclosure fraud controversy: Sure, there have been some outrageous cases like the ones listed above. But the vast majority of people facing foreclosure really have mortgages, and they’re really delinquent on them. So, the argument goes, what’s the big deal? Fix the paperwork, weed out the errors, and let’s all get on with our lives. Here’s the real problem: Any massive invasion of personal rights and liberties will catch some people who deserve to be caught. If we placed the entire country under martial law, initiated a state of siege, and rounded up every suspicious-looking person in America with a nationwide dragnet, many — perhaps most — of the people dragged off to jails would be guilty of something. But that’s not how free societies operate. People have rights, even if they owe money. The legal process around foreclosures has become a massive dragnet, run and managed by the financial services industry with the compliance of too many state and national legal institutions. The most egregious stories — i.e., people who paid cash for houses and had them seized anyway — are almost certainly a small minority of the foreclosure cases out there. But they show us how badly corrupt the entire process has become, and how far we’ve drifted away from fundamental principles of due process. 2. The Dukes of Moral Hazard Here’s the complete sentence from the Times article: “Even if the paperwork was faulty, the fact remains that most homeowners in foreclosure have not paid their bills, often because they bought more house than they could afford or because they lost their jobs. As a result, they will most likely lose their homes eventually, once the banks clean up their paperwork …” That’s a point the financial services industry is only too happy to underscore: “We believe that the overwhelming majority of the cases will be that the loan was seriously delinquent and needed to go to foreclosure,” the article quotes an industry spokesperson as saying. While the Times journalists did some excellent reporting for this piece, their sentence (above) framed the situation so well – from the financial industry’s point of view, that is – that a quote from the industry itself was almost redundant. Sure, a lot of people “bought more house than they could afford,” and some of them did so irresponsibly. But the financial industry’s all too happy to leave it at that, characterizing all these foreclosures as problems of individual character rather what they really are: a breakdown of process, law, and ethics on a systemic level. According to the most recent report from Lender Processing Services, Inc ., 9.22% of all mortgages in the US are delinquent – and that’s not counting those that are in foreclosure. 8.22% are either in foreclosure or more than 90 days overdue. All told, roughly 11% of all mortgages are either delinquent or in the foreclosure process. That’s a problem with the system, not the product of millions of flawed individual characters. Here’s the bottom line: More than one in ten mortgages is in bad trouble. What’s more, one in four mortgages is underwater, which means there’s not enough collateral to cover billions of dollars in loans. The generous explanation for the banking industry is that they’re completely incompetent at what they do. A huge chunk of the loans they’ve written are bad. Forgive the language here, but the bank-friendliest explanation for this systemwide breakdown is that bankers suck at what they do. But the real explanation is that they knew these loans were bad — and wrote them anyway. Why? Because they intended to make quick and easy money by pumping up housing values, churning loans to customers who they knew couldn’t pay. (The customers didn’t know that, but the banks did.) They thought they could float this crap game forever, riding an ever-growing bubble and tossing the defaulting homeowners away when they couldn’t pay the nut. But the bubble burst and the crap game got shut down. They were able to walk away from this massive nationwide scam by convincing the country that the only irresponsible parties were people who “bought more house than they could afford.” It worked, too. But now they’ve been caught in widespread fraud — and they want to walk away from that, too. Nobody’s suggesting there weren’t irresponsible buyers out there, too. But so far, the bankers have been able to convince the country that the “moral hazard” was everybody’s but theirs — even though they were running the entire system, and it’s the entire system that’s broken down. This time, the guilty parties should be made to pay for criminal behavior. And they should be forced to accept some of the financial consequences of their bad behavior by writing down some of the principal on the bad loans they’ve issued and sold. 3. Contract Killers A loan is a contract, an agreement between two parties. The lender agrees to provide a certain sum of money, which the borrower agrees to repay according to agreed-upon terms and conditions. One of the biggest problems with the foreclosure fraud scandal – and the systems, tricks, and traps that created it – is that it obscures the contractual record between the parties, leaving all the information (and all the power) on one side of the transaction. Consider the woman whose bank offered to let her skip a monthly payment in return for accidentally changing her locks, and then proceeded to foreclose on her. With shell games like the mortgage industry’s MERS, which obscures the actual trail of ownership and insulates the lender from court proceedings , the bank in question doesn’t even have to show up during the foreclosure process. That means that she’s denied the right to face her trading partner in court. Due process is trampled upon, and so is the right to legally enforce a contract. People facing foreclosure aren’t just people who lost their jobs or “bought too much house.” They’re people who had a deal with their bank. Then they were hit with late fees, or unilateral changes to their loan terms, or other surprises that caused them to fall into a spiral of debt. Of those who have missed payments, many of them have a legitimate case to make: that the other party broke the contract and that’s why they’ve missed payments. The foreclosure fraud scandal has taken away their right to defend themselves in court. 4. Getting Medieval On Your Assets The last counterargument is literally an ancient one. It’s based on the long-established right of any citizen to be inviolable in their home and possessions. This goes back to the Magna Carta, which established that the will of the monarch wasn’t arbitrary and that the property of “freemen” could not be seized without proper legal recourse. This principle was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which says “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” (emphasis mine) It’s bad enough that we’ve seen massive violations of the Constitution and people are saying it’s no big deal. But we’re also seeing massive violations of a legal principle that was established as an inalienable human right … in 1215 AD ! And people are still saying it’s no big deal. This isn’t a “technical” problem or a “paperwork” issue. It reflects on our national character, and our will to preserve the rights and liberties that have existed for eight centuries. The problem isn’t that some people bought “more house than they can afford.” The problem is that we have more rights as free citizens than the banking industry can afford. So, naturally, they want us to pretend those rights don’t exist. If we do, we’ll lose them. And that will be a really big deal. _______________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Wall Street’s Latest Gold Rush? The Booming China Market

October 27, 2010

BEIJING/HONG KONG (Reuters, By Steve Eder and Denny Thomas ) – Morgan Stanley (MS.N) chief executive James Gorman wasn’t going to miss his chance. It didn’t matter that he was on holiday. Gorman dropped everything and flew to Beijing last April. He wanted to show up in person to make sure his firm got a piece of what was shaping up to be the biggest initial public offering in history. In Beijing, Gorman spent hours rehearsing with his team for a half-hour pitch to executives of Agricultural Bank of China (601288.SS)(1288.HK), whose IPO would eventually raise $22 billion. “For a half-hour bake-off, he came all that way,” Wei Christianson, Morgan Stanley’s China CEO, said in an interview last month from her office near Financial Street in Beijing. As he practiced, the Australian-born CEO debated with colleagues about whether the Chinese bankers would want to hear his stories about farming in the outback. Gorman was not the only top Wall Street executive looking to get in on the AgBank deal. JPMorgan (JPM.N) CEO Jamie Dimon and Deutsche Bank CEO (DBKGn.DE) Josef Ackermann also went to China to make their pitch, and in the end all three banks secured an underwriting assignment for the bank’s Hong Kong offering. For a while at least, with their eyes dead set on the AgBank pot of gold, global bankers could set aside concerns about the challenges they face in China, a market they are desperately trying to crack but where they are finding more setbacks than successes. Why they want in is no mystery. Economists at Goldman Sachs believe that mainland China’s market capitalization will rise to $41 trillion by 2030 from $5 trillion now. That would make China’s stock market the biggest in the world. U.S. market cap is expected to grow to $34 trillion from $14 trillion over that time. But with China, American financial powerhouses may have met their match. Here, government connections and family ties can trump decades of banking experience and western swagger. So for all their efforts — and kowtowing — this is likely to remain one tough market Wall Street firms. GOLD RUSH In Beijing, where the towering gray headquarters of the world’s largest banks — Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (601398.SS)(1398.HK), China Construction Bank (601939.SS) (0939.HK) and Bank of China (601988.SS) (3988.HK) — cast a long shadow, Wall Street banks are still on the outside looking in. The towers in and around Financial Street wouldn’t look out of place on Wall Street. But looks can be deceiving. “You can’t just come in here and act like this is New York and try to operate the same way you would in New York,” said Philip Partnow, who heads China M&A for UBS (UBS.N) (UBSN.VX). Global banks trying to jumpstart their China operations are tangled in a web of strict regulation, culture clashes and politics. They worry too that even the sweat equity they are putting into training their partners in the ways of western banking will be lost. Some wonder whether China’s long-term plan includes their foreign guests from Wall Street. “At some point, the Chinese want to get to the point where they don’t need the foreign investment banks,” said Michael Werner, a Hong Kong-based China banking analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. China’s domestic “A Share” IPO market is especially tightly controlled. Even though global banks are actively underwriting listings for Chinese firms on the Hong Kong exchange, they are being shut out of the mainland IPO market. The China IPO market has reached $56 billion so far in 2010, more than five times what it was a decade ago. Despite such torrid growth, major U.S. banks have moved down the underwriting rankings, while domestic banks have solidified their spots at the top. Global banking powers like Goldman Sachs (GS.N), Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan have an investment banking presence in China, which connect Chinese companies, often state-owned entities, with foreign capital. The Chinese banks have not built up their international distribution networks yet, leaving the door open foreign banks to get a piece of the market. But what happens when China’s banks and its growing ranks of regional securities firms are able to shoulder the load? Some foreign bankers fear they will be sidelined, with years of investment lost, and invaluable know-how left in the hands of their Chinese partners. “Basically, it is a big technology transfer that is going on here — and then the Chinese shut the door,” said Gordon Chang, author of the book ‘The Coming Collapse of China’. “They’ve done this so many times.” CULTURE CLASH One day a decade ago, during China’s mid-autumn festival, CICC CEO Levin Zhu was the last one to leave the office. He was working late into the night in a smoke-filled room on the China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (Sinopec) (0386.HK) (600028.SS) IPO. By that time, Morgan Stanley’s influence on CICC had shrunk in part because Zhu had wrested control of the bank from the Wall Street firm, reducing it to a passive investor. It was a far cry from the more engaged role that Morgan Stanley had envisioned when helped to launch the joint venture. When Morgan Stanley began the JV, its majority partner, China Construction Bank, was purely a commercial bank and had virtually no investment banking experience. That’s what Morgan Stanley brought to the table. Morgan Stanley brought seasoned bankers, its brand, and an invaluable amount of know-how to the joint venture. The information would be critical to CICC getting off the ground. With CICC, Morgan Stanley found itself on the inside of a successful investment bank, but one that was fraught with culture clashes and internal warring between western bankers and their Chinese counterparts, according to people who worked in the joint venture. THE RIDDLE Levin Zhu, who was a riddle to some of his Morgan Stanley counterparts, personified the cultural differences that make or break joint ventures. Zhu is what is known in China as a “princeling,” the offspring of a powerful politician. The son of former Chinese premier Zhu Rongji, he studied meteorology before going into finance and eventually landing atop CICC. Some former Morgan Stanley executives remain perplexed by Zhu, who they say understood finance and investment banking, but worked odd late hours and appeared to rely too much on his father’s political ties. Zhu, with his political clout, succeeded in reducing Morgan Stanley to a passive investor for much of the past decade, removing the Wall Street bank from management decisions and giving complete control of the operation to the Chinese. Morgan Stanley’s interest in exiting CICC came to light as early as 2007, but the bank is still waiting for approval from regulators to sell its stake. Media reports have indicated that approval could come soon. The slow-moving process has delayed Morgan Stanley’s plans to apply for a license with a new partner because rules forbid the banks from having two joint ventures simultaneously. And China does not seem to be in a hurry to create another competitor. Despite the history, Morgan Stanley refuses to speak ill of its CICC endeavor. MANY RISKS In September, Reuters met with a number of executives and investment bankers from global banks, all of which are jockeying for position in the Chinese market. The executives offered a positive outlook for China and spoke with hope and ambition about building operations there. With China expected to emerge as the largest market in the world — it’s economy is growing more than 10 percent annually — bankers are careful not to say anything that could catch the attention of regulators and potentially hurt their access. “A lot of what these people say publicly, that China is going to be great, just cannot be true; there are too many risks,” said Victor Shih, who teaches political science at Northwestern University. Foreign banks are under pressure to appear bullish China because they are trying to sell Chinese investments to clients, he adds. But if China’s growth goes as expected, there is no doubt it will be a boon to financial intermediaries who stand to see billions of dollars in yearly revenues over the next two decades — making it all the more critical for Wall Street banks to become true players in the market. LONG-TERM PROSPECTS Executives from Goldman and UBS, two banks that are among the best-positioned in China, were upbeat about the long-term prospects. “I think people thoroughly understand that long-term is long-term,” said Mark Machin, co-head of Asia investment banking for Goldman Sachs, who has been in Asia for 16 years. “These businesses and relationships don’t come in a month or week, they take years. We are building for a very long time. Everybody understands that,” he said. UBS talks about how it has found success “swimming with the current” in China. “What are the government’s priorities in China and how can I align my activities with their goals?” UBS’s Partnow said, explaining how his firm has found success in moving with regulators. Even though some bankers privately share frustrations about the strict hand of Chinese regulators and the pace at which they move, publicly the executives measure their words when talking about the government. Robert Morrice, Barclays’ Asia-Pacific CEO, says he understands where the Chinese regulators are coming from. “I try to put myself in their position,” he said. “If I were them I would want to control international entrance to my marketplace because you have to have the right participants.” THE DANCE As banks salivate over the possibilities, there are some doubters, however. One of them is James Chanos, the hedge fund manager known for correctly predicting the demise of Enron. Since the start of 2010 he has been making the case that China is built on a real estate bubble that is likely to burst. “I don’t see this ending well,” Chanos said from his New York office. “The bulls think the Chinese authorities will slowly let air out of the bubble. History is not on their side.” The slowdown might be starting already. Property investment is set to grow 26.8 percent for all of 2010, slowing from a rise of 37.2 percent in the first seven months of the year, according to a report from a top China economic planner. Chanos does not speak Mandarin and he has never been to Beijing. But he knows numbers, and his predictions do not look good for Wall Street banks hoping to find gold in China over the long term. “China is not going to be a driver of their profitability,” he said. When Gordon Chang, the author, considers how banks are tripping over one another to get an edge in China, it conjures up memories of former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince’s infamous comment before the U.S. housing crisis: “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.” “When your competitors do something, you’ve got to do it as well,” said Chang. “But I think they’re all missing something.” Chang, a lawyer who worked in China and Hong Kong for two decades, also points to the overheated real estate market. He said he believes that foreign banks are already getting hints that China could be on a course for trouble. Goldman recently pared its stake in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China by $2.3 billion. Earlier, Bank of America pared down its interest in the China Construction Bank to raise $7.3 billion. “That’s not what you would do if you were truly bullish about it,” Chang said. (Writing by Steve Eder; Additional reporting by Michael Flaherty in Hong Kong and Kang Xize in Beijing; Editing by Jim Impoco and Ted Kerr) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Backdoor Bailout, Tea Party Fakeout: The GOP’s Secret $90 Billion Gift to Wall Street

October 22, 2010

GOP candidates are making a point of running against “bailouts” this year. Yet even as they rail about rescuing big banks, they’re working on a plan that would slip those same banks an estimated $90 billion in taxpayer money…and that’s just in the first ten years. “Fiscal conservatism,” anyone? It was always hypocritical to slam a bailout that they and their party initiated. But it turns out they were just warming up. Now they’re trying to pull a fast one on the American public, tapping Tea Party rage about big government spending even as they prepare to slip the big bankers some big bucks. They’re planning to siphon off $90 billion meant for America’s college students and their families and give it to Wall Street. Any Tea Partier who votes for these guys is being played for a sucker. The Republican repeal plan wouldn’t just put tens of billions of public dollars in bank coffers. It would also raise the maximum amount a graduate is forced to pay each year from 10 percent to 15 percent of income. And it would extend the length of time before their debt is forgiven from 20 to 25 years. Your GOP: Sending billions in taxpayer money to rich bankers, and squeezing young people starting out in life. Call it the New Populism. Small government? Less spending? The Republican Party’s backdoor bailout of wealthy bankers is bigger than the auto-industry bailout. It’s bigger than the home-loan program. It’s bigger than the lending program for small businesses. And unlike those programs, it serves no social purpose at all: This week, two Republican senatorial candidates were the latest to push this secret subsidy for Wall Street. Washington’s Dino Rossi and Mark Kirk in Illinois were obviously working from the same playbook, since they made almost identical points while declaring their opposition to this year’s student-loan reform. “You know, part of the takeover of government has been part of the student loans,” said Rossi. “I don’t think that we should adopt legislation that the Congress has moved forward to have a complete government takeover of all student loans,” said Kirk. Kirk and Rossi are talking about this year’s student-loan reform. That program eliminated a cushy deal that gave private banks a percentage of government-loan funds for “administering” loans (they weren’t actually lending the money). They performed their administrative duties both inefficiently and unethically. What’s more, the banks took a portion of their vig and spent it on lobbyists in order to keep the pot sweetened for themselves. It didn’t work — but if the GOP has its way, it’ll work next year. You’re not seeing a “populist” uprising on the right. You’re seeing lobbyist and billionaire money at work, channeling genuine frustration and anger into an electoral plan designed to help bankers get even richer. The “government takeover” argument is ridiculous, of course. In this case they’re talking about a government takeover… of government . This is the public’s money, and it’s intended to be lent to students and their families so that the dream of an ever-more-expensive college education is available to more families. Taxpayers support this program so much that neither Kirk nor Rossi could afford to criticize it. But not too many of those taxpayers would support taking billions of their dollars and funneling it to Wall Street, as the GOP would do. The “complete government takeover” statements are also absolutely false, since private students loans are still available. (See Pat Garafolo’s excellent pieces on Rossi and Kirk for more detail.) When private bankers managed the student-loan process, it was filled with rampant corruption that included kickbacks to school administrators. Millions of dollars meant for students were also stuffed in the pockets of lobbyists and politicians. (Details here .) And as for that “privatization” mantra we keep hearing from the GOP, consider this: The government created and funded Sallie Mae to help students get these government loans, and then privatized it. The result was a taxpayer-created and financed company that bought itself three private jets, paid bloated executive salaries, and threw government money at Washington pols (including a quarter of a million dollars for George W. Bush’s inauguration). (We’ve got more information on the loan program , and a rundown on the “private” Sallie Mae Corporation that includes a photo of one of those jets and their ID numbers.) Because of our current hard times — hard times brought about by the very same bankers who would get billions under the GOP plan — our student-loan program is even more important than ever. Unemployment and underemployment for college graduates is soaring. The average college graduate’s debt in 2009 was $24,000 , up six percent from the year before, and that’s before the full impact of the economic downturn. Diverting billions in federal student loan money to Wall Street under these circumstances is nothing short of obscene. But the GOP has made it clear that they’re in the bankers’ back pockets. Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Republican Senate campaign committee, indicated they would immediately move to repeal the financial-reform bill if they gained power. That would give their banker friends free reign to exploit consumers and take even greater risks with the economy. This $90 billion giveaway of government money — our money — is just part of a larger pattern. While neither Kirk nor Rossi were originally Tea Party candidates, they’ve both made their peace with the movement. Unnamed “Tea Party activists” from the State of Washington issued a letter of support for Rossi , while the formerly centrist Mark Kirk has flip-flopped on multiple issues in the last few months in order to pass Tea Party muster. Both candidates are part of a larger GOP plan to use anti-spending, anti-bank rhetoric in order to spend billions on subsidizing banks. Billions for bankers, benefit cuts for students. A “privatization” scheme that lets a few people get rich off government programs, promoted in the name of “less spending” and “less taxes.” That’s the system that these Republicans want to bring back and even expand. They want to use student loan money as a piggy bank for rich piggies, tapping taxpayer dollars to to enrich their pals. So my question for the Tea Party rank and file is this: Are you going to let the big banks and their politician cronies play you like this? Are you going to be a sucker? They’ve got $90 billion that says you will. ______________ About the table: The Department of Education Arne Duncan estimates the bank subsidy was costing approximately $9 billion per year, including the interest banks were able to collect . Given the rapid and ongoing increases in college tuitions, it’s not unreasonable to think that the total amount could be wind up being much more than either figure. I used the data compiled by the New York Times for the other figures. In every case, I used the highest possible figures for the final cost of each program, to make my estimates as conservative as possible. (I stayed away from TARP, even though we’re told it’s making a profit, because the total cost is still unknown.) The result was clear: This GOP’s planned Wall Street giveaway was the biggest and costliest of all the programs listed. Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: Work from Home Successfully

October 5, 2010

Want to work or run your business from home and like the idea of never having to go anywhere, work in your underwear, and do as you please with no one looking over your shoulder? Well, whether you are working for someone else from your home or running your own business from home, there are some things you must know to make a home-run business successful. I have run multiple businesses from a home office for over 20 years. Each of these started out small and grew into something much larger. Each quite different, each requires a different focus and different levels of support. I started my first business when I was 29 from home only because I couldn’t afford an office. In the beginning, I was everything from sales person , sales team, CEO, shipping, receptionist, bookkeeper, and boss. For almost 3 years I worked for less money than I ever had and put in double the hours. I figured out how to make my home business successful and then was able to expand into multiple businesses with partners and employees. Still today I continue to operate a home office with support staff and partners working from traditional offices. With technology what it is today this is becoming more and more a possibility for the self-starter and self-disciplined. And those two traits will be required! There are many benefits to working from home from getting more done, working all hours, reduced travel time, tax advantages, and cost savings but you should beware of the many pitfalls and traps. Some of the problems with working from home are first the blur between work and personal life. Some find themselves unable to get focused on the business at hand and others unable to turn it off. I believe both of these responses are more about the individual than the location of the office. Also many people believe that they will have more freedom working from home and finally be their own boss. This I believe to be an unrealistic expectation. If you aren’t disciplined and a self-starter then working from home is a bad idea. But in this economy, (really any economy) self-discipline and personal motivation is critical no matter where you office. In the beginning, you probably will not have the support of a team and will be doing everything. Also many people run a home business that looks more like a home than a business that others will not take seriously and even you don’t take seriously. Here are some tips you may find beneficial to making your home business successful. 1. Define your spaces and separate work from home. Have a room dedicated for work. This room should not be mixed with family. Set aside a workspace that when you enter it, you are there to work. Your family needs to know this is your office not their home. 2. Set regular hours, and stick to the schedule. This is not a vacation because you are at home, it is work. Tell the kids, “I’m going to work, see you later.” I added one hour to my schedule when I had my first child so I could spend it with my daughter and then each day I also have lunch with them. Then it’s back to my office uninterrupted by family. 3. Prepare as you would any public job. Get dressed, get shaved/makeup and be presentable as a professional as you would in a public office. 4. Have a professional desk and chair. It doesn’t have to be expensive but you need a place to work from that is professional. 5. Private phone number, computer, email address and social media addresses. Do not mix your communication terminals with personal activities. The tools you use to communicate must be professional and set apart from those you use for personal uses. 6. Avoid retreating to family on tough days. This kills people at home because it is easy to retreat into the comfort of your kids, the sofa, TV or refrigerator. It is called work, dig in on tough days and push through! 7. Wear the boss hat. You have to be able to manage yourself by being the boss of you that directs you on what is expected, what has to get accomplished and manage yourself accordingly. 8. Get a predictable start each day. I start with the one hour with my daughter, then exercise, breakfast, shower, get dressed and go straight to my office. When in my office I start by writing my long-term goals, then today’s to do list and then start hammering away at it. 9. Keep statistics. If you don’t keep statistics on yourself it will be very unlikely that you are able to create a successful business. I keep stats on everything; out bound calls, in bound calls, teleconferences, emails, articles written, and the likes so that I can see my activity growing each day. This is also the only way to rationally discover what is working and not working. 10. Use the office after your schedule. One of the advantages of a home office is you can use it more than you would an office away from home. Once I have spent time with my family, then I return to my office at all times during the night when I am inspired. I predict over the next five years there will be an explosion in people working from home due to the massive numbers of unemployed that will last for years, combined with an aging population living longer and unable to retire and then aided by the technology development provided by the internet. Working from home is not for everyone but it does become a great option for the highly disciplined and self-motivated. There are tons of advantages of working from home but you remember that when you go to work from home, you still have to go to work to work! Grant Cardone, NY Times Best Selling Author and Sales Training Expert

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: After Summers, Which Path Will the President Take?

September 21, 2010

Now that Larry Summers is leaving, the President has a decision to make. His choice of a replacement will send a signal about the next two years of economic policy. That signal can restore consumer confidence and reinvigorate the electorate, or it can lead to even more discouragement and despair. Today unnamed Administration officials floated the idea of naming a corporate executive to the position. That’s a trial balloon that should be punctured immediately. The thirty-year-old law school graduate who asked the President yesterday, ” Is the American dream over for me? ” might interpret a choice like that as a ‘yes’ — unless he also happens to be a Fortune 500 CEO. There’s some confusion around today’s news about Summers’ end-of-year departure. Was it a rushed announcement? Did Summers choose to leave, or did he get the axe? Bloomberg News observed that Summers’ departure leaves Tim Geithner as the sole remaining member of Obama’s original economic team, which adds up to something that looks very much like a shakeup. Or maybe not. The Bloomberg article also quotes Robert Gibbs as saying “it is not a surprise,” and it’s true that it’s common for Administration officials to leave after the midterm elections. For his part, the President lavished Summers with praise : “I will always be grateful that at a time of great peril for our country, a man of Larry’s brilliance, experience and judgment was willing to answer the call and lead our economic team. Over the past two years, he has helped guide us from the depths of the worst recession since the 1930s to renewed growth.” Despite the kind words, the Wall Street Journal reports that “Administration officials say Mr. Summers’ departure could reinvigorate the White House economic team.” And there’s this quote from the President’s town hall meeting yesterday (via David Dayen ): “Well, look, I have not made any determinations about personnel. I think Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have done an outstanding job… This is tough, the work that they do… they’re going to have a whole range of decisions about family… the bottom line is that we’re constantly thinking, is what we’re doing working as well as it could?” But for those who are hoping that this move signals a change in policy, we can zigzag back to the “no policy change” camp if we take this quote seriously (from the WSJ article:) “Those who know Mr. Summers say his departure has more to do with the need to recover from two tough years in which he worked brutal hours and often did not sleep.” In other words, we don’t know nothin’. That means the Administration doesn’t have to pay the political price for looking like it’s in disarray. But it also means the President doesn’t get the benefit of looking as if he’s taking decisive action after seeing unsatisfactory results. Here’s what we do know: For middle-class Americans in search of economic relief, Summers’ departure is hardly what you’d call a setback. According to all reports it was Summers who insisted on introducing a smaller stimulus package, back when Obama had the political clout to get whatever he needed to fix the economy. We’re seeing the results in today’s “jobless recovery.” Ezra Klein quotes Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who said his departure is “a big victory for anyone who voted for change in 2008 only to see Summers work from the inside to water down Wall Street reform, block President Obama’s promise to protect Net Neutrality, and urge other pro-corporate positions.” The Bloomberg report tried to pin down the Administration’s thinking about possible replacements. But by citing a variety of unnamed sources (“one person familiar with White House discussion,” two people,” “one person”) we’re left with a cloud of unknowing: Administration officials are weighing whether to put a prominent corporate executive in the NEC director’s job to counter criticism that the administration is anti-business …White House aides are also eager to name a woman to serve in a high-level position … They also are concerned about finding someone with Summers’ experience and stature… That’s enough trial balloons to float an army of economists somewhere high above the clouds. (Whoever said “good idea” — hey, that’s not nice!) The President’s choice will be watched closely by discouraged Americans like those he met yesterday. His appointment of Elizabeth Warren last week sent an encouraging message, not only to progressives but to middle class Americans who seem to have resonated with Warren whenever they’ve seen her. But whatever glow the Warren appointment cast will soon be outshone, for better or for worse, by this appointment. Felix Salmon said that the idea of replacing Summers with a corporate executive is “

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Blindsight: Economics, Country Music, Tea Parties, and Third World America

September 13, 2010

Last November, when the Tea Party Express was just building up a head of steam, it seemed worthwhile to stop for a minute and listen to a country song . Why? For one thing it’s a really good song, and it had a great hook. “Here in the real world,” it says, away from those powerful guys in Washington and New York, “they’re shuttin’ Detroit down.” That theme was so inclusive and compelling that conservative singer John Rich (John McCain’s campaign troubadour) was able to get noted lefty Kris Kristofferson to act in the video, along with Mickey Rourke. That made the song important and interesting. How was John Rich’s message able to win over those guys? Because it was simple and true: The people who got us into this mess are doing just fine, and the people who worked hard and played by the rules aren’t. What concerned me back then was that this message, while compelling and accurate, could wind up benefiting some of most bank-friendly politicians on Earth. The Republicans who deregulated banking (along with centrist Democrats) could wind up with more power. They’d then be in a better position to carry out their agenda of blocking the modest banking reforms and economic fixes being recommended by the White House and Congress. Isn’t that pretty much what’s happening? Reading Arianna Huffington’s new book Third World America made me think of that song again. There’s a medical phenomenon called “blindsight,” where people who seem to be partially or completely blind are able to respond to visual information under test conditions. The theory is that they’re not blind at all, but are unable to consciously process the information they’re receiving from their eyes. Isn’t that what’s happening in the country right now? Most people aren’t economists or policy wonks, after all, so they probably haven’t “seen” this chart: ( source ) But on some level they know it. And they may not have seen this chart, either (from CBS Moneywatch via Mike Konczal ), but you can bet they “know” it too: People need ways to integrate and process all the information they’re receiving. They’re struggling with the cognitive dissonance they experience when they’re told the economy’s doing better, because they know that in their world it’s not. Human beings have always used stories and songs to integrate the information they receive, and we need better stories and better hooks than we’ve been getting lately. Know what’s a good hook for these troubled times? “Third World America.” Know what’s not ? ” Recovery Summer .” So score one for Arianna before the cover’s even cracked. The “recovery summer” theme was bound to ring false for the millions of Americans who still live in a devastated economy. That was destined to reduce the credibility of the very institutions that prevented even greater damage – institutions that could do more to help them. We’ve seen the Administration move toward a more coherent narrative in the last week, but will it be enough? “I ran because I felt that we had to have a different economic philosophy in order to grow that middle class and grow our economy over the long term,” the President in Friday’s press conference. That sounds like a story worth telling. Third World America is direct and clear in its message: Decades of aggressive corporate lobbying, driven by bankers and other large corporations, have led to a series of policy decisions that are eroding the American standard of living. The details are all there: The financial industry’s gone from 2.5% of our GDP in 1947 to 8.3% right before the meltdown. Financial profits went from a maximum of 16% between 1973 and 1985 to 41% right before the crisis hit. And rather than being chastened by their failure, or disciplined by taxpayers in return for being bailed out, bankers have embraced their old ways with enthusiasm. Meanwhile the American households that rescued them lost $13 trillion in wealth between mid-2007 and March 2009. There has been, in economist Simon Johnson’s words, a ” quiet coup ” led by a classic “oligarchy.” Bankers now exert enormous control over both the economy and the political process. People see that, and they’re angry. Anyone who wants to discuss the current state of affairs better be prepared to speak plainly – “third world America,” “quiet coup,” “oligarchy” – or they’ll be ignored. Some of us are actually old enough to remember when the American dream was at its peak. Even if you were just a kid, you knew certain things: If you worked hard, you could retire in financial security. You lived in a country that led the world in science research, education, and social mobility. We designed things, built things. We were creating the future. Many of us later traveled into Third World countries for work or pleasure. We were saddened by the crumbling roads, unsafe bridges, and unregulated companies poisoning the air and water. The income inequities seemed so unjust, and the people’s inability to heal their country through a free political process was tragic. Little did we suspect we might be looking into our own future. But Arianna’s not just crying in her beer. The final section of the book details a series of fixes, which include: Campaign financing. Citizen activism, with less reliance on politicians as saviors and more on ourselves as the agents of change. Spending on infrastructure and education. Bank reform with teeth. Homeowner relief. Service to others. Moving your money away from predatory financial institutions. I’d add another to that fine list: Stop judging the tea party radicals around you. Sure, some may be extremists and racists, but lots of them are just frightened and angry. They’re trying to reconcile what they “see” with what they’re being told. Right now they believe a false story, but it hangs together and makes them feel sane in a seemingly insane world. Demogogues have always used these kinds of stories to exploit human fear. You can’t blame people for believing a false story if they haven’t heard the real one. So don’t blame the individuals, blame the story. Tell them a better one. The truth is a helluva story. But even the truth works better if it has a good hook. _________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.”

Read the full article →

Ken Adelman: Labor Day Reflections by William Shakespeare

September 3, 2010

There’s no better time than Labor Day weekend to contemplate labor in the weekday. Like us, Shakespeare had mixed feelings. He had high opinion of exciting, challenging work: “To business that we love, we rise betime and go to it with delight” ( Antony & Cleopatra ). And even pointed out its medicinal utility: “The labor we delight in physics [cures] pain” ( Macbeth ). But the Bard, as always, was realistic. Such exciting work is exceptional. Most employment causes more pain than it “physics,” which we go to with dread rather than “with delight.” We are “winding up days with toil, and nights with sleep” ( Henry Vth ). Doesn’t seem all that great. Yet Shakespeare had to appreciate work — cranking out 37 plays in scant more than 30 years, all the while raising money for his performing companies, casting actors for the dramas (many put on each week!), acting in them, investing in theaters and sundry real estate, communicating with (if not commuting to) his family in a distant village. He — like high tech types today — appreciated the 24/7 nature of his work. Both aspects, the 24 and 7, are realized in Hamlet when the soldier Marcellus describes Denmark’s shipping yards filled with workers in “sweaty haste, does make the night joint laborer with the day.” On top of the 24 comes the 7, as he speaks of “shipwrights whose sore tasks do not divide the Sunday from the week.” The Bard realized that any workplace may be tough to navigate, given personal quirks and boss’ demands. Enduring this pressure can cause anyone in an office to sigh, “O full of briers is this working day world”. ( As You Like It ). Such stress is high today, given dismal unemployment numbers as businesses consolidate and keep payrolls slim. Company officers may cut back so that their core business can thrive — “Superfluous branches we lop away, that bearing boughs may live.” ( Richard II ). And large firms often buy successful startups: “The great ones eat up the little ones!” ( Pericles ). So times are tough for labor. Yet Shakespeare realized that times change, and along with them worker prospects. He thus counsels, “Be cheerful. Wipe thine tears. Some falls are means the happier to arise” ( Cymbeline ). Nicest to contemplate this weekend is Shakespeare’s nice tribute to the modest, hard-working, content laborer. One such appealing fellow, Corin in As You Like It , says with some pride: “I am a true laborer. I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, every man’s happiness, glad of other man’s good, content with my harm…”

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Coup d’Etat: Standard & Poor’s Is Now Giving Orders to Congress … and the American People

August 30, 2010

There’s been a lot of talk recently about the enormous power that’s been given to the Deficit Commission, which is co-chaired by Alan ” Social Security recipients are milking it ” Simpson and dominated by people who have advocated cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But here’s an aspect of the story that’s gone unremarked: Standard & Poor’s, the credit agency whose reputation should rightfully have been shattered by the economic crisis, is now dictating policy to the United States government. S&P just put our elected officials on notice: Submit to the proclamations of the Deficit Commission or we’ll downgrade our rating of government debt. That’s blackmail, plain and simple. This threat comes from a privately-owned company whose rating process is riddled with conflicts, and which has gotten virtually every critical assessment of recent years spectacularly wrong. Enron? Lehman? Subprime mortgages? They were zero for three. Yet rather than reining back their penchant for reckless proclamations, the chairman of S&P’s “sovereign rating committee” said that our elected officials’ response to the Deficit Commission would be crucial to its analysis of US debt. John Chambers said last week: “It is very important for the credit standing of the United States that the Congress considers very carefully what the fiscal commission proposes.” Just in case his intent wasn’t clear enough, he added: “It is very important for Congress to take the required steps.” “Sovereign” is right. That’s a kingly proclamation. Bear in mind, we supposedly don’t know yet what the Deficit Commission will propose. (We have a good idea, of course, since both the Democratic and Republican co-chairs are long-time advocates for cutting Social Security.) The total extent of the Commission’s recommendations, and the extent to which they’ll actually provide financial stability, are supposed to be completely unknown at this point. S&P’s statement isn’t an analysis, since there’s nothing to analyze. It’s a threat: Turn your authority as elected representatives over to this unelected body or we’ll cause financial damage to the United States Government. It’s not a hollow threat, either. This statement was made one day after S&P downgraded Ireland’s debt . A downgrade could cause massive harm to the United States government at a time of extreme difficulty. Debt could be harder to obtain, and it would become more expensive. That, in turn, would plunge the US deeper into debt. So who, exactly, is issuing this warning? What kind of credibility do they have? Standard & Poor’s is a division of McGraw-Hill, a publicly traded publishing company. They are a for-profit company, as is their fellow rating agency Moody’s (which issued a similar threat last March). Both of these for-profit companies have eagerly pursued the very institutions they were rating, to disastrous effect. Internal documents obtained by the Levin Subcommittee showed that both Moody’s and S&P let the profit motive compromise their judgments in the run-up to the economic meltdown. As we noted in a previous analysis , one internal S&P email said this about a rating they did for a customer: “”I don’t think this is enough to satisfy them. What’s the next step?” Here’s another example of S&P’s integrity . When an analyst asked to review loan files for a security he was asked to rate, his supervisor told him the request was “TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!” And consider this reported comment , which occurred during exploratory acquisition talks with investment research company Morningstar: “The S&P people insisted to Joe Mansueto (Founder/Chairman) that he was leaving big mounds of money on the table by not charging mutual funds for their ‘star’ ratings. Joe replied to the S&P bidders that it was an obvious conflict of interest to charge the funds for their own ratings — how would Morningstar maintain its independence? They called him naive — and stopped the merger talks.” The comments, though unconfirmed, have not been denied. Expert money manager Barry Ritholtz, who reported the story, indicated his confidence in his source and added, “This anecdote rings rather true to me.” Moody’s fared even worse in our review of Levin Subcommittee documents. Of four key objectives for its Structured Finance Group, responsible for ratings, “high quality ratings and research came in dead last – behind “generating increased revenue,” “increasing market share …,” and “fostering good relationships with issuers and investors.” Get the picture? Why would companies like Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s issue threats of this kind? There could be many reasons. One might be to please its corporate clients, who would like to see government spending cut for both ideological and business reasons. Another might be to encourage cuts in Social Security because, under current proposals from both parties, that would place more retirement savings in funds and accounts managed by S&P’s key clients. Moody’s may also legitimately believe that the deficit needs to be reduced immediately, which is debatable on economic grounds. But if the Moody’s action was arguable, S&P’s statement is indefensible. The ratings agency system is broken. These private companies have accrued enormous power without earning it. A lot of that power has been handed to them by government actions that rely on their ratings. That’s why the Senate voted for the Franken Amendment, which — while leaving these companies private — would have removed the inevitable conflict of interest that’s created when they compete for business. (The House/Senate Conference eliminated the Franken Amendment, calling instead for a two-year study. While the final bill is weighted toward an action of the kind called for by Franken’s amendment, two years gives lobbyists a long time to influence the outcome.) Standard & Poor’s are called “agencies,” but they should be called by their proper name: For-profit companies. These “ratings companies” have undermined the free market by allowing powerful issuers and investors to influence their own ratings. Markets with bad information – information that’s bought and paid for – aren’t really “free.” Now the “rating companies” are targeting the democratic process, too. We need a national discussion about the proper role of these companies, before they cause even more damage. Standard & Poor’s should be reprimanded for its inappropriate and unprofessional intrusion into the working of government. And everyone needs to be reminded: Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch can ‘outsource’ the democratic process. They are our elected representatives. They must not be forced to submit to conflict-ridden private companies with a track record of failure. _______________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street and Strengthen Social Security projects. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: The Administration, the Bloggers, the Homeowners (And Yes, Me)

August 23, 2010

The bloggers who attended briefings from a “senior Treasury Department official” last week have interpreted the concept of “deep background” in several different ways. I attended one of the briefings and initially didn’t plan to write about it at all. Others did write about it. One writer named the official, while others did not. (I still won’t.) Ezra Klein never discussed the meeting, but did address the ” meta-discussion .” Felix Salmon and Derek Thompson named the attendees, but due to an email mixup there was no name tag for me — which is presumably why neither one mentioned my name, an omission that provided some undoubtedly much-needed ego deflation. (But come on, guys! If somebody doesn’t mention me soon I’ll have to give my travel expenses back! Blue suit, gray hair, asked the follow-ups on Social Security and principal writedowns? Doesn’t ring a bell? Ezra, will you vouch for me?) Felix Salmon provided a good overview of the session (except for the omission of you-know-who), which Derek Thompson rounded out nicely . There will always be a Rashomon-like quality to these events. For example: As Brad DeLong noted, many of the participants felt that Politico’s Mike Allen “dragged the conversation” away from substance and into meaningless political “horse-race” talk. Thompson disagrees, but I think that description’s perfectly accurate. On the other hand, attendee Tim Ferhnolz thought Allen was wrong to report that the Administration’s eying Social Security changes — including probable cuts — while it seemed clear to me that Allen was right. Once other people started making the event public, it seemed right and appropriate to add to the record and correct it where I had a different impression. The two meetings last week have generated some blowback for the Administration. Shahien Nasiripour’s reporting, for example, has been picked up by David Dayen and others to criticize the HAMP program. Does that mean the Administration regrets holding the meeting? Yves Smith speculated on the Administration’s motivation for taking the time and effort to meet with us. Felix Salmon explained why he thinks these meetings are off the record. Brad DeLong responded by noting Mike Allen’s “gotcha” reporting about Social Security. Yet I still have a problem: I don’t think Allen got it wrong, and I think it’s important not to lull people into a false sense of security about the Administration’s intentions. I think these off-the-record meetings are very useful. You can get a better understanding of the Administration’s perspectives and thought processes. You can continue to be a critic when you disagree, but with a better understanding that permits more effective criticism. And you’re likely to find points of agreement that you can reinforce and support. I think these meetings should continue. But what’s the best way to respond honorably and fairly in a situation like the Allen/Fernholz disagreement? Once the Allen story was out, it seemed important not to let it be discredited too quickly. But it seems as if we’re in uncharted territory here. One of the other topics of was housing policy. Shahien Nasiripour reported on that conversation in detail. The Administration is focused on low interest rates as a way to help struggling homeowners, although I had difficulty asking a follow-up question about encouraging banks to make refinancing more available. Low interest rates don’t help anyone if nobody can qualify for a new loan. The official used at least one choice of words which provided an insight into the Administration’s moral evaluation of the housing situation, but the rules prevent me from saying anything more. What I can do is bring this new understanding of their beliefs and values to future interpretations of their behavior. The Administration official said commendable things about Fannie and Freddie and the proper role for government sponsored enterprises. He showed an understanding of the need to increase lending to small and medium businesses to stimulate hiring (and stem the job cuts at small firms ). He seemed acutely aware of what’s politically possible and what isn’t, without any sense that bolder steps could be proposed in order to shift the political debate. But then, that’s not his job — which is why the Mike Allen digressions proved somewhat frustrating to the rest of us. I would prefer to see the President spend less time pre-emptively surrendering to the limits of political possibility and more time trying to change those limits. But that’s a discussion for another day, with different players. I still think the Administration’s housing policy needs to be revamped. HAMP is a disaster. We should be seeing prosecutions for Wall Street fraud. We need to break up the big banks and restore Glass-Steagall, or something like it. I wish they’d invited consumer advocates to their housing reform panel . I still think homeowners (and renters, too) need a stronger voice in this Administration. Nothing in the meeting changed those views, nor do I think that was expected. But yes, I feel the process was worthwhile — not just for us, but for the Administration. Online reporters and commentators will have deeper insight into their thinking — whether they’re supporting an Administration position or opposing it. And there’s something to be said for reinforcing the habits of mutual respect and courtesy, while counteracting the narrative of hostility toward the “professional left.” And no, I don’t feel I’ve been corrupted or compromised by the experience. Now, maybe if I’d had a nametag … _______________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Techno-Thriller: Why Was Goldman Sachs So Worried About One Nerdy Sentence?

August 13, 2010

It sounds like the plot to a dozen movies: Picture a corporation so powerful that its tentacles circle the globe and reach into the highest corridors of power. Yet a single sentence on an ex-employee’s obscure website forces it to move into action. That sentence is so important that it leaves the corporation with no choice but to make that employee … No, not disappear. They just made him delete it. (This is where the movie comparisons end.) But the question is, why? The sentence described the Goldman Sachs risk system, SecDB (which stands for securities database). It read: “Unbeknownst to most of the non-strategists, you could see basically every position and holding across the company, whether you were supposed to or not.” Without some digging we can’t know that the sentence is true – but why did it cause such a reaction? It was pretty well buried in a blog post by Antonio Garcia-Martinez, a former Goldman “quant” (financial analyst). The post is a long, kiss-and-tell piece about his reasons for joining Goldman, his experiences there, why he left, and why he’s happier at his new start-up company. He says a number of unflattering things about Goldman Sachs in his post. So do a great many people, for that matter – every day. So why did Goldman Sachs bother making Garcia-Martinez delete this particular sentence, out of the reams of scandalous things said about them, and then contact Business Insider’s Clusterstock blog (which had reprinted it) to deny that it was true ? Because it could have a serious impact on Goldman’s future. First, consider the effect a revelation like this would have on Goldman’s already-battered client relationships. The firm is struggling to overcome the now-public knowledge that it bet against some of those clients, causing them financial harm while claiming at the same time to “serve their needs.” Personal relationships can influence a business deal even more than the corporation’s reputation, which is probably one reason Goldman’s still around. A corporate exec may continue to place his business with them even after he’s heard the bad stuff, as long as he likes and trusts hiscontact there. But what if our exec knew that his trusted “friend” at Goldman was aware of every position Goldman or its clients were taking against him (or had taken in the past), and that the guys betting against him knew instantly what he was doing? He might not want too much to do with his “friend” after that. Then there’s the question of market manipulation. Goldman has approximately 15% of the entire derivatives market. If its traders can immediately cross-check any deal they negotiate against what’s happening across 15% of the market, in real-time, that could raise serious legal issues. And it could seriously undercut statements like these, in which Goldman’s senior management tried to defend itself from accusations of fraud: “We certainly did not know the future of the residential housing market in the first half of 2007 any more than we can predict the future of markets today. We also did not know whether the value of the instruments we sold would increase or decrease. ” (emphasis mine) If they and their employees were tracking every deal in real-time they had a better picture of the those instruments’ value than they let on. A database like the one Garcia-Martinez described, if it exists, would be an invaluable tool in getting a jump on the market – or manipulating it. But wait: it gets worse. David Viniar, Goldman’s CFO, testified under oath to the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commission and claimed that Goldman didn’t track its derivatives deals separately from its other transactions. FCIC panel chair Angelides pressed him: “Are you telling me you have no system at your company that tracks revenues or assets of contracts, and liabilities and payments under contracts? You have no management reports, no financial reports that track these contracts?” “I’ve never seen one,” Viniar answered. The Commissioners seemed to verge on accusing him of lying. “Nobody here really believes (that),” said one. Flash back to February of this year, when David Viniar said this in a presentation to investors : “Technology is fundamental to everything we do, from revenue-producing activities to enabling much of the control infrastructure of the firm.” And here’s another quote, from Goldman’s Business Principles: “We take great pride in the professional quality of our work.” As the Wall Street Journal reported, Goldman has said that “credit trading desks … are separated by industry group … (and) traders are indifferent to whether they are selling clients a bond or a credit derivative.” The Journal added: “The firm also said its technology systems firm-wide don’t single out derivatives transactions.” Now comes the part of the movie where we place our sentence, that jigsaw puzzle piece, into context so that we get its full meaning: ” The Goldman Sachs risk system is called SecDB (securities database), and everything at Goldman that matters is run out of it. … Database replication was near-instant , and pushing to production was two keystrokes. You pushed, and London and Tokyo saw the change as fast as your neighbor on the desk did (and yes, if you fucked things up, you got 4AM phone calls from some British dude telling you to fix it). Regtests ran nightly, and no one could trade a model without thorough testing … Unbeknownst to most of the non-strategists, you could see basically every position and holding across the company, whether you were supposed to or not. The whole thing was so good …” He’s saying that Goldman Sachs has a first-rate, centralized data system that captures each deal in detail, and that everyone can see it as soon as it’s posted. What’s more, if I understand him correctly, he’s saying that employees are required to run a detailed model of their deals before they can post them on the system. And all this information is stored on a database. How can a system can do all this and yet be unable to distinguish between a bond and a derivative? Nevertheless, David Viniar testified under oath that Goldman’s systems were so unsophisticated that he couldn’t even tell the FCIC how much profit the company made from derivatives. Eventually, under continued pressure, Goldman provided the FCIC with an estimate which amounted to 25%-35% of its 2009 revenue. Yet Goldman is telling investors it won’t lose any revenue as a result of the financial reform bill , and analysts believe them. “They’ve clearly seen the writing on the wall and are planning their moves ahead of time,” said one. That brings us to Goldman’s plans to shut down its proprietary trading unit and spin it off into an independent hedge fund — or move it into Goldman’s asset management arm. Here’s a question that probably hasn’t been asked yet: Do they plan to use Goldman’s SecDB, or any other Goldman systems, in that asset management firm? If this trading unit is moved into a hedge fund, will that fund ‘rent’ its computer systems from Goldman? Will all the traders and ‘quants’ at these various organizations be able to ‘see’ deals happening in real time? That could trigger calls for an SEC investigation or other actions to prevent Goldman from improperly using computer data. And it could raise questions about the other big banks’ systems, too. It’s understandable why, given the implications of this nerdy sentence, Goldman would dispatch its publicists to tell Clusterstock it isn’t true. As for Garcia-Martinez, he was asked why he deleted the sentence. ” Prudence is the better part of valor ,” he answered — followed, no doubt, by a click as a gloved hand placed the telephone back in its cradle. Or course, this is no thriller. But the story raises serious questions, ones we should be asking anyway. If a bank is “too big to fail,” its data is “big enough to misuse.” It also shows why we need strong regulations behind the financial reform bill, to make sure that information doesn’t become another “financial weapon of mass destruction.” And it shows why we need to end “too big to fail.” The story also illustrates how much we don’t know about what the big financial players are doing. It reminds us that we wont be able to protect the economy from future Wall Street crimes unless we keep investigating the ones that have already taken place. _______________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Social Security: The "IOU … Nothin’" Argument Strikes Again

August 10, 2010

Allan Sloan, Senior Editor at Fortune and a frequent Washington Post contributor, is usually a smart and fair guy with a knack for seeing through the usual DC economic spin. That’s why it’s particularly disappointing to see him get it wrong on Social Security trust funds, and in a way that provides ammunition to those who would do the wrong thing morally. Today’s piece by Sloan is an excellent example of the arguments being used to justify breaking commitments to working Americans. So, even if that’s not his intent, it’s important to respond. Sloan says that the $2.54 trillion Social Security trust fund — money that the government borrowed to offset tax cuts, a couple of wars, and a whole host of other expenditures — is “funny money” that looks real but isn’t. He mocks this longstanding financial (and moral) obligation as a “Geithner bond,” complete with the picture of a Monopoly-money bond with Geithner’s face on it. (It’s a handy rhetorical move to pin this on ol’ Tim, since he seems pretty unpopular these days, but most of this debt was incurred in previous Administrations.) Here’s the example that’s used as the crux of Sloan’s “funny money” argument: If he and Mrs. Sloan begin collecting their Social Security when they become eligible this year, “Social Security would have to cash in about $3,400 of its trust-fund Treasurys each month to get the money to pay my wife and me.” So, argues Sloan, the trust fund’s accounts aren’t “real money” at all. This is important. Social Security trust funds will have an annual surplus of $77 billion in 2010 (because of interest earnings on bonds and certificates of obligation issued by the US Treasury), but payroll taxes alone won’t cover the full cost of benefits. Sloan writes that Social Security will “tap” the Treasury Department to cover the $41 billion difference between tax income and benefits paid this year, but that’s loaded language. Collecting interest on borrowed funds, or for that matter the principal, is not what we usually consider “tapping” (a slang word for borrowing or asking for money). Sloan’s argument, as nearly as I can tell, is that the $41 billion isn’t “real” because the Treasury Department might need to borrow to pay for it. That doesn’t make sense. It’s an IOU. An IOU is both a financial instrument and a moral obligation. It’s wrong to say that a government IOU has no value unless you expect the government to default. Why should a financial obligation to the future recipients of Social Security be treated with any less gravity than one to a bank or other lender? Banks consider the obligations the government has toward them very real indeed. Is Mr. Sloan, suggesting a bank-held Treasury bill or debt obligation isn’t “real”? Employees and employers paid into the Social Security fund for the sole purpose of providing these benefits. Politicians raided the kitty to borrow the funds for other purposes. We as a nation have an ethical responsibility to pay it back. Here’s another problem with Mr. Sloan’s argument: That $41 billion is only 6% of the total benefits of $686 billion that will be paid this year. So Social Security would only have to cash in about $200, not $3,400, to provide the Sloans with the retirement security to which they’re entitled each month. And, as the Social Security Trustees reported this year, this year’s shortfall is “attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income.” We’ll probably have another year like this one, followed by a couple of years of surplus. After that the plan will need to draw down on the IOUs for a portion of its payments under current projections. The real shocker in Mr. Sloan’s piece is this line: “The trust fund is of no economic value.” Let’s hope that nobody takes him seriously when he says that, because it could set off a panic. Bonds from the United States Treasury are of no economic value? They are, in fact, one of the safest forms of investment. What could he mean? Apparently he means that they’re of no value in reducing the deficit, since he bases that statement on this quote from the 2009 Trustees report (presented as if it were a smoking gun): “Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new income to the Treasury, which must finance (them) through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.” It’s true that redeeming these bonds doesn’t reduce the deficit — but that’s the point. It shouldn’t. And given that Tim Geithner is one of the Trustees, along with the Secretaries of Labor and HHS and the Social Security Administrator (two public trusteeships are awaiting confirmation), it’s hardly surprising that this reminder was included last year. (It’s not in this year’s report.) Mr. Sloan says that both political parties are “wrong” — “the Democrats financially, the Republicans morally.” But the financial argument for repaying the money is perfectly sound: Government bonds — all IOUs, for that matter — have real financial weight. They can’t just be declared invalid, or “funny money,” because the borrower now has other priorities and doesn’t want to borrow to redeem it, even when the borrower is the nation itself. In the end, the argument that this money isn’t “real” is morally mistaken, too. It’s based on the premise that government debts to the Social Security fund have no ethical, legal, or economic weight. “Let’s not kid ourselves that a fat trust fund is the solution,” writes Sloan — but a solution to what, exactly? It’s certainly not a solution to the Federal deficit, any more than the government’s other debt obligations are. That’s why it’s wrong for Alan Simpson’s Deficit Commission to be going after these benefits. I hope Mr. Sloan comes to see the flaws in his argument. Social Security is a separate trust, a pact to provide benefits to the American people. Debts to Social Security are real and valid, and if they’re not honored millions of Americans will suffer. That’s why we hope Mr. Sloan will come to see that the “funny money” line, and the “gag” bond illustration that went with it, really aren’t funny at all. _______________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Too Old to Rock ‘n’ Roll, Too Young to Die Ruin Social Security

August 7, 2010

Don’t Fear the Boomers. Despite the scaremongers’ attempts to incite generational war, people born between 1946 and 1964 are not going to destroy Social Security. The Baby Boom cohort isn’t going to be a crippling financial burden for Generation X, Generation Y, Generation XYY, or any other generation. It may be true that their descendants will be forced to listen to their greatest hits until the sun goes supernova (more cowbell, please!), but economically there’s nothing to worry about. Since I’m one of the dreaded boomers myself I guess I can’t be considered objective, so don’t take my word for it. Ask an actuary. Harry C. Ballantyne’s biography demonstrates that he’s the nation’s leading expert in forecasting Social Security trends. His career includes eighteen years as the Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration (under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) and a degree in Physics – but no time whatsoever as the bass player for Jethro Tull. Actuarial certification is extremely hard to receive, and those guys know their stuff. (I know because when I was a young Boomer and numbers guy, my boss offered to finance my actuarial training. But I had small children at home, you gotta take a lot of really hard exams, yada yada yada … you know how flightly these boomers are.) What does Harry C. Ballantyne says about all the generational fear being whipped up today? A new report released yesterday by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), co-authored by Ballantyne with EPI President Lawrence Mishel and economist Monique Morrissey, explains: “Social Security is running a surplus of $77 billion this year and amassing a trust fund large enough to last through the peak retirement years of the Baby Boomers.” Hey, kids! Leave them boomers alone! “Though modest changes will be needed to put Social Security in Balance over the 75-year planning period,” the report adds, “the projected shortfall is less than 1% of Gross Domestic Product.” Got that? Military expenditure is 4.7% of GDP. The Bush tax cuts can be reasonably be estimated (based on these figures ) to have been at least 2% of GDP. Senescent boomers playing In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida on old Stratocasters? Less than 1% … and, as the report observes, only “modest changes will be needed to put Social Security in balance.” No less a personage than Alan Greenspan (who probably refers to Boomers as “those young whippersnappers”) led the Commission that pretty much fixed the generational problem during the Reagan years, when Ballantyne first became Chief Actuary. That’s why we only need minor tweaks today. Sure, Social Security spending will increase from 4.8% or GDP to 6.1% in 2035. But since Social Security is forbidden from taking money from taxpayer revenues, all the Deficit Commission and America Speaks propaganda about those figures is only meant to confuse and manipulate. Here’s the bottom line: Those numbers don’t contribute to the Federal deficit. That’s the main point of the EPI paper, which is entitled “Social Security and the Federal Deficit: Not Cause and Effect.” As for the canard that Social Security is “going broke” — it’s not. If changes aren’t made, it will run out of assets (trust funds, etc.) in approximately 2037 and would have to cut benefits by 22%. We need to prevent that, but let’s put the “going broke” rhetoric in perspective: A lot of jobless Americans today would be thrilled to receive 78% of the income they had before the Great Recession. Anyone who can say that Social Security is “going broke” is lying, or else they ain’t never been “really broke.” (Or both; the two aren’t mutually exclusive.) So what went wrong? The EPI report explains the real reason for the shortfall (as detailed by Ballantyne and his actuaries back in the 1990′s): It’s “mostly the result of higher disability take-up, slower wage growth, a growing share of earnings above the taxable earnings cap, and a growing share of compensation going toward health insurance and other untaxed benefits.” Got that? That almost sounds like a four-point plan for fixing Social Security: Improve overall health and occupational safety. Boost wages and employment. Raise the earnings cap (which isn’t adjusted for wage inflation). And do more to control runaway health care costs. What isn’t necessary is to ship all the boomers off to Antarctica on wooden ships, as desirable some might find that option. (Speaking of which: These findings won’t reduce inter-generational snark like this from blogger Duncan Black, aka Atrios , who remarked upon seeing people older than himself at a gig featuring contemporary bands Arcade Fire and Spoon: “(G)ood for old people who don’t live in an endless nostalgia loop. Life goes on after The Eagles reunions end.” Whose reunions does he go to — Flock of Seagulls?) The worker-to-retiree ratio isn’t worse than projected, despite increases in life expectancy, thanks to a growing workforce. That growth is driven largely by increasing numbers of working women and (sorry, Tom Tancredo) immigrants. As for revenue, the EPI paper explains that this “modest shortfall” can be addressed by either raising tax rates or raising the cap on earnings. The latter is preferable because, as the paper says, “the lion’s share of increases in both earnings and life expectancy (emphasis mine) has gone to those at the top of the income distribution.” There’s more in the paper, including a firm rebuttal to some of the misstatements emerging from the Deficit Commission. But the key takeaways are this: Social Security does not contribute to the deficit (which is why the entire America Speaks exercise was deceptive), and Boomers are not the problem they’re made out to be. That’s really all there is to say on the subject, except to Duncan Black, to whom I would add: “On a dark desert highway, cool wind in your hair …” _______________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Come on Down — It’s Time to Play "Social Security Survivor"!

August 3, 2010

A broad coalition of groups has been formed to defend Social Security, and the videos announcing it are all worth watching. Of all the ideas proposed, my personal favorite comes from AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee: A new reality show starring the people who want to cut Social Security. He suggests having John Boehner, billionaire benefit-cut advocate Peter G. Peterson, and Deficit Commission chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles live for a year on the average Social Security benefit of $14,000. “They won’t get a COLA (cost of living increase,” says McEntee, “but they’ll still have to deduct $100 a month for Medicare Part B and still have to pay $200 a month for Medigap insurance.” (The video of his comments is below.) Great idea, Mr. McEntee! Mr. Peterson should be more than happy to take you up on your offer. He likes games, having funded one called “Deficitball.”(1) Alan Simpson seems like a playful sort of fellow, too. It sounds a lot like I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! , where the famous and well-to-do are dropped in a jungle and forced to do icky things like eat bugs and snakes. But in this case the jungles will be our own cities and towns and contestants are more likely to eat Purina than piranha. But why limit ourselves to only four contestants? Why not invite those Senators who have pushed for these sorts of cuts, too, like the senior Senator from California ? Dianne Feinstein, come on down! And let’s not exclude economists like Alice Rivlin, a member of the Simpson/Bowles Commission who wants to cut benefits for all the wrong reasons. Let’s meet our newest contestant! Dr. Rivlin thinks it’s “absurdly unlikely” that “widows living on the edge of subsistence” will have their benefits cut – but then, she doesn’t tell us where she thinks that edge lies. That’s a shame because, as women, our last two contestants will be asked to survive on less than the men. The average Social Security benefit for older women is $11,900, so that’s what our female contestants will receive. Unfair? you say. Outrageous? Sure it is, but this is a “reality show” and that’s the reality. “When do you think they’ll stop calling for benefit cuts?” asks McAfee. “Probably in the first episode.” He’s probably right. Chances are that our contestants live in pleasant communities, surrounded by the nearness of family and friends. That’ll be the first thing to change. There may be tearful farewells to children and grandchildren and lifelong friends, as our contestants move to urban slums or the distant and fading outposts of the American dream. Our next dose of reality: Our male contestants will be living on $1,166 each month, and the women will have $991. After those premiums are subtracted they’ll have $866 or $691 for all their monthly needs. (And let’s hope they don’t have out-of-pocket medical expenses.) Rent? Food? Transportation? These amounts will have to cover everything. Our contestants may not know what it’s like to live like this, but here’s their first lesson: Monthly budgets are too long-term when you’re subsisting at this level. If they’re lucky enough to pay no more than $500 per month for rent and utilities, our male contestants will now have $85 per week for all other expenses and the women will have $44.27. Is our reality show “real” enough for you yet, contestants? Are we “living on the edge of subsistence” yet? Eating bugs and snakes for a few weeks is probably starting to look pretty good by comparison. What would we call this reality show? Survivor ? The name’s been taken. The Real World ? Taken. Extreme Makeover ? That one’s taken too. American Chopper ? Not quite right, although would be a good name for what the Deficit Commission is trying to do right now with our benefits. Here’s the reality: Generations of Americans benefited from a three-legged system that ensured their financial security in old age. The first was the pension system, which has been gutted by employers. The second was savings and personal assets, which for most households have been decimated in the last several years. And now the only remaining leg, Social Security, is under attack. “It’s not a benefit cut,” proponents claim. “We just want to raise the retirement age.” But many people who live in the reality show we call “life” can’t work until we’re seventy. Their jobs are physically demanding, or there aren’t any jobs to be had. Raising the retirement age means less money for them. (Of course, it also means less money over a lifetime for those who retire at seventy, too.) Social Security’s the most conservatively managed, financially stable public program we have. It has survived multiple economic downturns. Its greatest threat right now comes from our would-be contestants. Some deficit cutters will promise that lower-income people will not see benefit cuts. But any cuts will break the covenant under which workers have paid payroll taxes for a lifetime. And the question remains: Where will you cut? If you say you won’t do it for people living on $44 per week, what about those whose total income adds up to $65 a week? $75? $100? What will satisfy you? And what assurances will we have that you won’t break your promise again someday? When it comes to tampering with Social Security, millions of Americans are already living the reality we just described. The next one to “play” it may be the teacher who taught you to read, or the nurse that brought you back to health … or your mother and father … or you. Hey, look! The show’s about to begin. Some of the faces look awfully familiar .. . Hey, America! It’s time to meet our newest contestants! ____________________________________ (1) I thought “Budgetball” sounded like a cross between The Fountainhead and Death Race 2000 , but if Peterson plays this game I promise to reconsider. (click here to send a message to every Washington politician on the campaign trail: Hands off Social Security!) (The reality show remarks occur at 2:30.) ____________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Timothy Geithner’s Secret Thoughts On Elizabeth Warren (VIDEO)

July 27, 2010

In the ongoing battle between good and evil, we’re pretty sure Elizabeth Warren is one of the good ones. A Harvard professor who sticks up for the middle class, she’s a popular pick to lead the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She’d be expected to fight for average consumers against the banks, the system, the man, and anything else that goes bump in the night. But Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner hasn’t seemed very excited about her prospects, reportedly opposing her nomination . Of course, he hasn’t gone on the record saying that. But the good folks at Funny Or Die have a contraption that translated his thoughts from a recent interview on ABC’s “This Week.” Good news, FOD — Geithner’s department no longer controls the heavily armed Secret Service. But they still run the IRS, so enjoy your upcoming audit. WATCH: Timothy Geithner’s Secret Thoughts on Elizabeth Warren – watch more funny videos

Read the full article →

G-20 Leaders Pledge To Halve Deficits By 2013

June 27, 2010

TORONTO — Wary of slamming on the stimulus brakes too quickly but shaken by the European debt crisis, world leaders pledged Sunday to reduce government deficits in richer countries in half by 2013, with wiggle room to meet the goal. Leaders of 20 major industrial and developing countries generally sided with cutting spending and raising taxes, despite warnings from President Barack Obama that too much austerity too quickly could choke off the global recovery. “Serious challenges remain,” they cautioned in a closing statement. “While growth is returning, the recovery is uneven and fragile, unemployment in many countries remains at unacceptable levels, and the social impact of the crisis is still widely felt,” according to the document from the Group of 20 major industrial and developing nations. Obama told a news conference he was satisfied with the outcome, saying he recognized that countries had to proceed at their own pace in either emphasizing growth or budget austerity. “We can’t all rush to the exits at the same time,” Obama said after three days of economic summitry. Summit participants navigated a careful course between Obama’s emphasis on growth and fellow leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel who advocated spending cuts and even tax increases. “Advanced economies have committed to fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013 and stabilize or reduce government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016,” according to the statement. The gross domestic product, or GDP, measures the value of all goods and services, and is considered the best gauge of economic health. At the same time, the statement called for following through on “existing stimulus plans,” heeding Obama’s concerns. Japan was given an exemption from meeting the debt targets because of years of a stagnant economy, and the fact that its huge debt is largely owned by Japanese and not overseas investors. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the summit host, told reporters that deficit reduction “is not an end in itself” and that there is “an ongoing role for stimulus in the short term.” As the summit wrapped up, conditions on the streets of Canada’s biggest city remained tense. Police, responding more aggressively than the day before, raided a university campus and rounded up protesters in an effort to quell further violence after youths rampaged through the city the night before, smashing windows and torching police cruisers. Police said they arrested more than 600 demonstrators. Harper blamed “thugs” for the violence and suggested the destruction and fires on the streets justified the $900 million that Canada spent for summit security. World leaders also took note of the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in their statement, which recognized “the need to share best practices to protect the marine environment, prevent accidents … and deal with their consequences.” The April 20 explosion on the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig unleashed the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. BP is London-based and the disaster has contributed to strains between the U.S. and Britain. Britain’s new conservative prime minister, David Cameron, told reporters BP was working hard to cap the well, “clean up the mess” and compensate victims. At the same time, “what we all want is for this important company to be strong and stable for the future,” he said. The G-20 statement limits the deficit-reduction goal to the most industrialized nations and offers governments flexibility on when to start balancing their books. French President Nicolas Sarkozy pointed out that “France has made even more stringent promises to its European partners on deficit-cutting.” Asked if summits were necessary, Sarkozy admitted that they can be exhausting. “We end these summits empty, tired, but it’s our duty to participate,” he said. European countries, in particular, have been rattled by the near-default of Greece on its government debt. The document doesn’t endorse a bank tax advocated by Europe and the U.S. to set up a fund to pay for future bailouts. Canada, Australia and Japan, whose banks did not fail in the crisis, oppose the levy. Instead, it says all countries should make sure taxpayers are not stuck with the bill when banks fail, and leaves it up to individual countries to decide how they want to do that. Canada’s Harper urged leaders to “send a clear message that as our stimulus plans expire, we will focus on getting our fiscal houses in order.” He said global economies needed to walk a “tightrope” between deficit spending this year, ensuring the fragile recovery continues and then switching to deficit reduction programs. The G-20 includes the world’s major industrial countries – the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Canada, Italy and Russia – plus major developing nations such as China, India and Brazil. Some countries will find it more difficult than others to meet the new deficit targets. The United States ran a record deficit of $1.42 trillion last year, or 10 percent of its GDP. Private economists expect the deficit will decline only slightly to $1.3 trillion this year, which would amount to 9 percent of GDP. Obama’s budget plan from February would cut the deficit in half by 2012, as a percentage of GDP. He’s also named a commission to examine how to trim the deficit further, to 3 percent of GDP – a level economists generally view as sustainable. Republicans have suggested it is unlikely that Obama will be able to meet his own deficit-reduction targets and say the White House has yet to put forward a credible plan. And critics complain that the deficit commission Obama set lacks the power to make Congress consider its recommendations. Yet, the U.S. stands a generally good chance of meeting the targets, assuming a strengthening economy between now and then. Britain is in worse shape. Its deficit this year is over 10 percent of GDP in 2010. “For European countries with high budget deficits, especially for the U.K. with the highest budget deficit in the G-20, we have got to make our contribution to that sustainable growth by showing the world that we can live within our means,” said British Treasury chief George Osborne. In a BBC interview, Osborne said that means stiff cuts in government spending. Britain last week put forward a tough emergency budget, raising taxes and cutting spending by levels not seen since World War II. On the other end of the spectrum, Canada’s federal budget deficit will be less than 3 percent of GDP this year. Ottawa’s plan aims to balance the budget by 2014-15. As he opened the final session, Harper boasted that Toronto was “home of the most solid financial sector in the world.” Its banking system was barely affected by the financial meltdown of 2008. The deficit targets that the G-20 countries adopted had been outlined by Harper in a letter he sent to fellow leaders this month. But there were disagreements over them right through a dinner on Saturday night. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met Sunday for the first time with Japanese Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda and stressed the importance of the G-20′s call for strengthening rules for banks to set aside money as cushions against potential losses, according to a Treasury Department official. Obama had urged the G-20 countries to avoid the costly mistake made during the 1930s, when countries reduced government support too quickly and ended up prolonging the Great Depression. The joint statement made only a passing reference to the need for “greater exchange rate flexibility” and made no specific mention of China’s recent announcement that it would allow its exchange rate to rise against the dollar. That was a victory for the Asian superpower, which has repeatedly said it did not want to be lectured by other powers on exchange rates. However, Obama, at his news conference, said: “The United States welcomes China’s decision to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces. We will be watching very closely in the months ahead.” ___ Associated Press writers Emma Vandore, Jane Wardell, Darlene Superville, Jeannine Aversa, Foster Klug and Martin Crutsinger contributed from Toronto. ___ Online: Summit site: http://g8.gc.ca/home/

Read the full article →

Unions, Consumer Groups Rally Behind Wall Street Reform

June 25, 2010

Consumer advocates, labor unions and progressive advocates of Wall Street reform are hailing passage of the bill by the conference committee early Friday, even as analysts warn that it fails to solve the problems of bank size and interconnectedness that led to the financial crisis. Given the complexity of financial regulatory reform, progressive observers looked to key leaders to gauge the value of the proposals under discussion. Among others, the group included Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor and head of the congressional panel overseeing the bailout; Heather Booth, the director of Americans for Financial Reform; Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO who has made confronting Wall Street a central part of his union’s mission; and Kathleen Day, a former Washington Post business reporter now with the Center for Responsible Lending. All of them are out with statements celebrating the final bill, though with some reservations. The AFL-CIO put its statement out under the name of the director of the office of investment, Daniel Pedrotty. “This is a David and Goliath victory of working people against the big banks and Wall Street,” he said. “While it’s not perfect, this legislation is a giant step to changing the rules of the game that caused the economic crisis.” Elizabeth Warren’s statement comes as she is routinely floated as the best candidate to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “It has been more than 20 months since the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and we are still living under the same set of rules we had in place before the meltdown. Thanks to the leadership of President Obama, Chairman Frank, and Chairman Dodd, that’s about to change. Members of the House-Senate conference committee and their staffs worked through the night to produce the strongest set of Wall Street reforms in three generations. They created a strong, independent consumer agency that will have the tools to rein in industry tricks and traps and to cut out the fine print. For the first time, there will be a financial regulator in Washington watching out for families instead of banks,” said Warren. Warren didn’t mention in her statement that the CFPB won’t have the power to regulate lending by auto dealers, an often predatory practice involving the second-largest purchase a consumer typically makes. The Pentagon battled the auto dealers over the carve-out, arguing that soldiers are being ripped off so routinely that it is damaging military readiness and national security. The auto dealer lobby is chest thumping. Ed Tonkin, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, said that the carve-out was “a testament to the hard work of all of the auto dealers and dealership employees around the country who made sure that the merits of the issue were heard. Their grassroots efforts truly made today’s victory possible.” Day praised the creation of the bureau but chided Congress for buckling to the auto dealers. “House and Senate conferees reached a historic agreement to create a consumer protection agency that is truly independent from the lenders it will oversee: It will have a single director nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate; funding that is largely insulated from meddling by industry lobbyists; and the tools and scope needed to ensure most lenders operate under one set of common-sense rules. That’s a win for families, small businesses, taxpayers and the economy,” she said. “Auto dealers — whose lending record is rife with unfair, deceptive practices, especially for people of color and military personnel — should not have been exempted from oversight.” Day was more enthusiastic about tight mortgage lending rules that survived in conference. Originally passed by the House as Miller-Watt-Frank, after lead sponsors Brad Miller (D-N.C.), Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the legislation bans a number of abuses that helped fuel the crisis. Brokers can no longer be rewarded for steering borrowers into dangerous loans, among other reforms, and the CFPB is empowered to rein in deceptive and abusive practices. Stabilizing mortgage lending would go a long way to stabilizing the financial sector, said Miller. “It’s hard to believe what went on in the mortgage market in the last decade, and that so many members of Congress just parroted the talking points of lobbyists defending the indefensible. The financial crisis began with millions of Americans trapped in subprime mortgages that they couldn’t pay, when they qualified for prime mortgages that they could,” Miller told HuffPost. “If these rules had been in place we would never have had the foreclosure crisis, the financial crisis or the Great Recession.” Booth, of Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of unions, consumer groups and progressive organization, “hailed” the legislation. “We see landmark legislation when it comes to consumer protection, offering all of us an independent watchdog on our side. For the first time, the $600 trillion derivatives market will be transparent and have to maintain capital to back up its bets — a move that was once inconceivable. The adoption of the Volcker Rule represents a major change of direction, stopping banks from using insured deposits to support speculative activity. We see big steps in the right directions when it comes to hedge funds and private equity, as well as improvements for investors to have a voice,” she said. “Americans for Financial Reform calls for members of Congress to support this bill and move to final passage immediately. This is a big step forward, and a first step towards the further changes we need to make sure Wall Street serves Main Street and not vice versa.”

Read the full article →

Expect G-20 Leaders To Clash Over How To Spark Global Recovery

June 25, 2010

HUNTSVILLE, Ontario — As world leaders gathered to deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis, President Barack Obama boasted about a congressional compromise on overhauling the U.S. banking system and called for an international effort to prevent future economic meltdowns. But Obama was still facing major obstacles in convincing a balky Congress to provide more money to fight high unemployment and many countries were resisting Obama’s appeals for continued stimulus spending to support the global economy. They were moving in the opposite direction to raise taxes and cut government programs out of fears of a Greek-style debt crisis. After meeting through the night in Washington, congressional negotiators cleared the financial overhaul proposal with the help of an administration-brokered compromise on derivatives trading. The agreement was certain to be a major discussion point as Obama and other leaders of the Group of 20 major economies gathered for three days of talks in Canada. Those discussions were beginning Friday with a session at a Huntsville, Ontario, resort, a three-hour drive north of Toronto in Canada’s Muskoka lakes region. “We need to act in concert for a simple reason: This crisis proved and events continue to affirm that our national economies are inextricably linked,” Obama said on the White House lawn before leaving for Canada. “At the G-20 summit this weekend, I’ll work with other nations not only to coordinate our financial reform efforts but to promote global economic growth.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One that Obama had taken a number of bold steps to deal with the financial crisis since taking office last year and now “he leads the world in financial reform.” Leaders of the Group of Eight major industrial nations – the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada and Russia – were meeting Friday to discuss a range of initiatives to alleviate global poverty. Those discussions were to move back to Toronto on Saturday and Sunday for talks with the larger G-20 group which includes the rich countries and major developing nations such as China, Brazil and India. The G-20 group represents 85 percent of the global economy and the United States wants this group to endorse the outlines for global financial reform to eliminate the threat that banks facing tougher regulations in one jurisdiction will move their operations to countries with more lax rules. Even before the summit began, the leaders engaged in a series of dueling letters and interviews that exposed their conflicts. A key discussion point for the G-8 was a proposal being promoted by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the summit host, to bolster support for maternal and child health care in poor nations. The G-8 was also holding an outreach session with leaders of seven African nations. Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan said the G-20 should be expanded to include more African nations. At present, only South Africa is a member. “If African nations have challenges, the West also pays for it,” Jonathan said in an interview in Toronto’s “The Globe and Mail.” Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, would be a likely candidate for inclusion if the G-20 is expanded. In an opinion piece the newspaper published Friday, new British Prime Minister David Cameron said he was determined to make his first international summit a success. “Too often, these international meetings fail to live up to the hype and the promises made,” Cameron wrote. “A lot of money is spent laying them on. Host cities disrupted for days, even weeks. The cavalcades roll into town.” Cameron said Britain’s main priority at the meeting was to hear each country provide details about plans for getting their “national finances under control.” The G-8 was also scheduled to spend time over dinner Friday night discussing the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and seeking consensus on ways ahead. The U.S. and its allies will be looking to convince China to support U.N. Security Council action to hold North Korea accountable for the sinking of a South Korean warship in March. On Iran, the U.S. and European nations will push other major powers to join them in imposing tough new sanctions on Tehran over its suspect nuclear program, building on expanded Security Council measures adopted earlier this month. But China and Russia only reluctantly supported the sanctions, and have balked at new unilateral steps against Iran, saying any measures should not exceed those called for by the Security Council. The House-Senate conference committee agreement on financial overhaul, which the administration hopes can be passed by Congress and on Obama’s desk by July 4, represented a welcome triumph for a White House that has had a tough two months dealing with the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history and a Congress increasingly worried about soaring U.S. deficits. On Thursday, solid Republican opposition caused the defeat of legislation that would have provided billions of dollars for job creation and extended benefits for unemployed people. Other G-20 leaders have not signaled much support for Obama’s warnings that countries should not pull back their stimulus efforts too quickly. Britain, Germany, France and Japan have all unveiled deficit-cutting plans. Canada’s Harper was urging the countries to agree to concrete deficit-reduction goals as a way of restoring investor confidence following the turmoil caused by the Greek debt crisis. Toronto’s downtown core resembled a fortress with a big steel and concrete fence erected over several blocks to protect the summit site. Canadian police patrolled the Lake Ontario waterfront from boats and jet skis with the number of security forces protecting the summit meetings estimated to total 19,000, drawn from all over Canada. The G-20 leaders’ summits began in the fall of 2008 in response to the global economic crisis that struck with fury after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a major U.S. investment bank. At that time, the leaders joined to assemble multibillion-dollar support packages to restart economic growth and financial rescue efforts to rescue a froze global banking system. But now that the banks are back from the brink and the world’s economies are growing again, unity is proving more elusive. ___ Crutsinger reported from Toronto. Associated Press writers Rob Gillies, Darlene Superville, Jane Wardell and Tom Raum contributed from Toronto.

Read the full article →

Video: Dick Bove Says `You Should Be Buying Bank Stocks Today’: Video

June 25, 2010

June 25 (Bloomberg) — Richard Bove, an analyst at Rochdale Securities LLC, talks with Bloomberg’s Betty Liu and Jon Erlichman about the impact of legislation overhauling the financial regulatory system on U.S. banks. Lawmakers from the House and Senate worked through the night in a 20-hour session to reach deals on a ban on proprietary trading by banks and oversight of the derivatives market. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Kennedy Had Death Threats After Assassination of Brothers, FBI Papers Show

June 14, 2010

By Justin Blum June 14 (Bloomberg) — Death threats were made against Senator Edward Kennedy in 1968, warning he would be the next member of his family to be assassinated, FBI documents show. An anonymous letter dated Oct. 21, 1968, to an office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Seattle said, “To whom it may concern, assassination for Kennedy number three within twentyfour hours of the day October twentyfifth nineteen sixtyeight. All Kennedy residents are in danger on that day.” The letter was among the files released today about the late Massachusetts Democrat in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, and includes death threats to the youngest Kennedy brother. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy was killed in Los Angeles on June 6, 1968, on the night of California’s Democratic primary election. One document said that in 1977, a former California prison inmate told Arizona authorities that Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy, offered him $1 million and a car to kill Edward Kennedy. The former inmate, who wasn’t identified, said he declined the offer. Sirhan told the inmate to contact Sirhan’s mother for details when he was released if he decided to carry out the killing, according to the document. The inmate said he was in the cell next to Sirhan’s at the Soledad prison in California for 18 months ending in January 1977. The files also contained documents related to the accidental drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne when Kennedy drove his car off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969. Kennedy, who first won election to the Senate in 1962, died in August 2009 after a 15-month battle with brain cancer. To contact the reporter on this story: Justin Blum in Washington at jblum4@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

South Korean General Said to Offer to Quit Amid Furor Over Ship’s Sinking

June 13, 2010

By Bomi Lim June 14 (Bloomberg) — South Korea’s top military commander offered to step down over reports he mishandled North Korea’s alleged torpedoing of a warship in March that killed 46 sailors, which included allegations he was drunk on duty at the time. General Lee Sang Eui, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , offered his resignation yesterday, two military spokesmen said by telephone today, citing official policy for not giving their names. Lee’s offer was first reported last night by South Korean media including Yonhap News agency. South Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection last week recommended that 25 generals and civilian officials should be punished for mishandling the March 26 attack on the Cheonan. President Lee Myung Bak vowed today to fix problems in the military and hold officials responsible. Reports that Lee Sang Eui was drunk or sleeping off a hangover during the sinking have dominated local media. The general didn’t return to duty until 5 a.m. on March 27, Yonhap and the Hankyoreh newspaper reported on June 11. The 1,200-ton Cheoan started sinking shortly after 9 p.m. the previous day. South Korea’s military has denied reports the general was sleeping off a drinking session during the sinking. Lee Sang Eui was in a command center between 10:42 p.m. on the night of the incident until 2 a.m. the next day, Park Sung Woo, spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on June 11. To contact the reporter on this story: Bomi Lim in Seoul at blim30@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Top South Korea General Said to Offer to Quit in Furor Over Ship’s Sinking

June 13, 2010

By Bomi Lim June 14 (Bloomberg) — South Korea’s top military commander offered to step down over reports he mishandled North Korea’s alleged torpedoing of a warship in March that killed 46 sailors, which included allegations he was drunk on duty at the time. General Lee Sang Eui, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , offered his resignation yesterday, two military spokesmen said by telephone today, citing official policy for not giving their names. Lee’s offer was first reported last night by South Korean media including Yonhap News agency. South Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection last week recommended that 25 generals and civilian officials should be punished for mishandling the March 26 attack on the Cheonan. President Lee Myung Bak vowed today to fix problems in the military and hold officials responsible. Reports that Lee Sang Eui was drunk or sleeping off a hangover during the sinking have dominated local media. The general didn’t return to duty until 5 a.m. on March 27, Yonhap and the Hankyoreh newspaper reported on June 11. The 1,200-ton Cheoan started sinking shortly after 9 p.m. the previous day. South Korea’s military has denied reports the general was sleeping off a drinking session during the sinking. Lee Sang Eui was in a command center between 10:42 p.m. on the night of the incident until 2 a.m. the next day, Park Sung Woo, spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on June 11. To contact the reporter on this story: Bomi Lim in Seoul at blim30@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

BP Show of Support May Fail to Save Chief Hayward as Obama Goes on Attack

June 9, 2010

By Stanley Reed and Brian Swint June 10 (Bloomberg) — On the night of June 7, a group including Vittorio Colao , head of telecom company Vodafone Plc, Martin Sorrell , chief of advertising firm WPP Plc, and John Sawers , director-general of the intelligence agency MI6, gathered on the sixth floor of BP Plc’s London headquarters to show support for Tony Hayward , the company’s beleaguered chief executive officer. “We have learned that he is made of steel,” BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said as Hayward, dressed in a rumpled blue suit and dark checked shirt, worked the room. The 53-year-old CEO will testify before Congress next week. The show of support may not save Hayward, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its June 11 issue. The day after the London party, President Barack Obama said he would have fired the BP chief if he were working for him. Demands for a change in leadership will probably become irresistible, said Gudmund Halle Isfeldt , an analyst at DnB NOR ASA, Norway’s largest bank. “Both Hayward and the chairman are likely to go,” he said in a phone interview from Oslo. “That will be down to pressure from politicians.” Lose Patience Investors may start to lose patience as well. BP shares have tumbled again this week, taking losses since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20 to 40 percent, a drop that’s wiped about 50 billion pounds ($74 billion) off the value of the company. The cost of cleaning up the spill and settling claims may reach as much as $37 billion, according to Credit Suisse. Should the board seek a change, there are three leading inside candidates to succeed Hayward, analysts said. Andy Inglis , 50, the head of exploration and production, had been considered as Hayward’s likely successor. His chances suffered after the calamity occurred in his unit. Refining and marketing chief Iain Conn , 47, has made a start at turning around BP’s downstream business, where the 2005 explosion at the Texas City refinery forced improvements to safety. Another candidate is Robert Dudley , 54, who ran BP’s Russian affiliate TNK-BP until he left in 2008 during a battle with the company’s Russian partners. On June 5, Hayward put Dudley in charge of a special unit responsible for the cleanup operation. Dudley, born in New York and raised in Mississippi, would be the first American CEO at the 101-year old British company. ‘Great Job’ “If he does a great job at running the unit, there’s no reason he can’t go to the top” said Dougie Youngson , an analyst at Arbuthnot Securities Ltd. in London. To show the company is serious about changing the way it operates, BP’s board may decide to bring an outsider in as chief executive officer for the first time ever. One possibility is Frank Chapman , 56, head of BG Group Plc , who built the former state-owned gas driller in to the biggest British-based oil and gas company after BP. He hugged Hayward sympathetically at the party this week. “BP is clearly going to require a renewed focus on safety,” said David Hart , an analyst at Westhouse Securities Ltd. in London. “In deepwater drilling, companies are pushing the bounds of technology and, perhaps industry-wide, there was not a great understanding of what would happen if things went wrong.” To contact the reporter on this story: Stanley Reed in London at sreed13@bloomberg.net ; To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Swint in London at bswint@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

BP Increases Gulf Oil-Capture Rate to 10,500 Barrels a Day, Hayward Says

June 6, 2010

By Edward Klump and Aaron Clark June 6 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc said it increased the amount of oil being captured from its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico to 10,500 barrels yesterday and expects to increase that quantity in the next few days. The well is estimated by government scientists to be gushing 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day into the Gulf. BP said yesterday it collected 6,077 barrels in the previous 24-hour period ending at midnight June 4. The spill is the worst oil spill in U.S. history. A “cap” over the well is capturing “probably the vast majority” of the leaking oil , Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward told the Broadcasting Corp. today in an interview in London. BP has “a further containment system to implement this week,” he said, adding that a permanent and hurricane-proof mechanism will be in place by the end of the month. Oil from the gushing well will remain in the water into the fall, U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said today on CBS’s “Face the Nation” broadcast. “There will be oil out there for months to come,” Allen said. “This spill is holding everyone hostage. This is a siege. It’s going to go on for a long time.” Improvement Expected After the cap was put in place the night of June 3, gas reached a surface ship at about 11 p.m. local time, and oil was being piped to the ship about 10 minutes later, BP said yesterday on its website. “Improvement in oil collection is expected,” the London- based company said today on its website . “We’re hoping to improve it over the next few days,” BP spokesman Mark Salt said in a telephone interview today. Allen said yesterday in a news conference that four vents on the cap remained open, allowing oil to flow through the cap and into the ocean. BP will try to close the vents when pressure is stabilized, he said. The system can capture as much as 15,000 barrels a day, and BP will push toward that limit, according to Allen. “I’d like to see us capture 90-plus percent of this flow,” Doug Suttles , BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said June 4 on CBS’s “Early Show.” “That’s possible with this design.” The shears used to prepare the well for the cap created a cut that was more jagged than had been hoped for, so there is isn’t a perfect seal between the cap and the well, Allen said. The company won’t know how bad the leakage is until it is capturing more oil, he said. History Lesson “History has taught us here to be cautiously optimistic, not overly optimistic,” Dan Pickering , an analyst at investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston, said yesterday. He said capturing 90 percent of the flow would be a “huge home run.” The spill, which has cost BP more than $1 billion, has soiled about 140 miles of shoreline in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, along with some 80 miles in Florida, the Coast Guard said yesterday. Gulf winds are moving the oil now in the water closer to the coasts of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, Allen said. He said oil in tar balls and patties is affecting areas from western Mississippi to Pensacola, Florida. The well began gushing oil after the Deepwater Horizon rig BP leased from Transocean Ltd. exploded on April 20 and sank two days later, resulting in the deaths of 11 workers. The leak is 40 miles (64 kilometers) off Louisiana’s coast under about 5,000 feet of water. Obama, Hayward President Barack Obama said communities along the Gulf Coast suffering because of the oil spill will be “made whole” with payments from BP and government aid. In his weekly address on the radio and Internet, which was taped June 4 in Grand Isle, Louisiana, Obama said livelihoods that have spanned generations are in danger of being lost. BP’s Hayward told the BBC he hadn’t spoken directly to Obama since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. “There is no need for that,” Hayward said. “I have spoken to his key lieutenants.” BP and the Obama administration are working “hand-in-hand” to resolve the spill, Hayward said. Hayward told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper in an interview published today that he doesn’t fear the threat of jail as a result of a criminal probe into the spill and that he expects to be in his job a year from now. Kuwait Investment Kuwait Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, isn’t considering selling its 1.75 percent stake in BP and believes there is no threat to the company’s future as a result of the spill, the Al-Rai newspaper reported today. Businesses and workers losing income from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill should be getting money more quickly from BP, the Coast Guard’s Allen said today. The company must “get better at claims processing and helping these people that need money,” Allen said on CBS today. “I know that’s not what they do as a corporation but they have got a responsibility,” Allen said. BP has paid about half of the 35,000 claims submitted by Gulf residents and companies for income lost because of the spill, Darryl Willis, vice president of resources at BP America, said yesterday on a conference call. BP is awaiting documentation for the other claims, he said. Willis said the company’s claims spending through June may top $84 million. ‘First Call’ Hayward told investors June 4 on a conference call the spill has the “first call” on the company’s funds and financial consequences of the spill will be “severe.” Allen said relief-well operations to stop the leak will involve pumping mud to reduce pressure and placing a cement plug. He said this effort will be the “bottom kill exercise.” Allen said the “worst case” he sees is that a discharge continues until relief wells are completed in August. “In the long term, the threat from this well will not go away until the relief well has been drilled, pressure has been taken off and the well has been plugged,” Allen said. “In the meantime, we need to optimize our containment efforts.” To contact the reporter on this story: Edward Klump in Houston at eklump@bloomberg.net .; Aaron Clark in New York at aclark27@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

BP Increased Oil-Capture Rate to 10,500 Barrels a Day

June 6, 2010

By Edward Klump June 6 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc said it increased the amount of oil being captured from its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico to 10,500 barrels a day from 6,077 barrels in the previous 24-hour period ending at midnight June 4. The well is estimated by government scientists to be gushing 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day into the Gulf. The spill is the worst oil spill in U.S. history. A “cap” over the well is capturing “probably the vast majority” of the leaking oil , Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward told the Broadcasting Corp. today in a live interview in London. BP has “a further containment system to implement this week,” he said, adding that a permanent and hurricane-proof mechanism will be in place by the end of the month. U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said yesterday in a news conference that four vents on the cap remained open, allowing oil to flow through the cap and into the ocean. BP will try to close the vents when pressure is stabilized, Allen said. On June 4, Allen said BP was recovering oil at the rate of about 1,000 barrels a day. BP said yesterday that it collected 6,077 barrels of crude in the 24-hour period of June 4. “They are making adjustments to the systems and making sure they don’t increase the production rate until it’s safe to do so,” Allen said. Improvement Expected After the cap was put in place the night of June 3, gas reached a surface ship at about 11 p.m. local time, and oil was being piped to the ship about 10 minutes later, BP said yesterday on its website. “Improvement in oil collection is expected over the next several days,” the London-based company said yesterday on its website . The system can capture as much as 15,000 barrels a day, and BP will push toward that limit, Allen said. “I’d like to see us capture 90-plus percent of this flow,” Doug Suttles , BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said June 4 on CBS’s “Early Show.” “That’s possible with this design.” The shears used to prepare the well for the cap created a cut that was more jagged than had been hoped for, so there is isn’t a perfect seal between the cap and the well, Allen said. The company won’t know how bad the leakage is until it is capturing more oil, he said. History Lesson “History has taught us here to be cautiously optimistic, not overly optimistic,” Dan Pickering , an analyst at investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston, said yesterday. He said capturing 90 percent of the flow would be a “huge home run.” The spill, which has cost BP more than $1 billion, has soiled about 140 miles of shoreline in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, along with some 80 miles in Florida, the Coast Guard said yesterday. Gulf winds are moving the oil now in the water closer to the coasts of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, Allen said. He said oil in tar balls and patties is affecting areas from western Mississippi to Pensacola, Florida. The well began gushing oil after the Deepwater Horizon rig BP leased from Transocean Ltd. exploded on April 20 and sank two days later, resulting in the deaths of 11 workers. The leak is 40 miles (64 kilometers) off Louisiana’s coast under about 5,000 feet of water. Obama, Hayward President Barack Obama said communities along the Gulf Coast suffering because of the oil spill will be “made whole” with payments from BP and government aid. In his weekly address on the radio and Internet, which was taped June 4 in Grand Isle, Louisiana, Obama said livelihoods that have spanned generations are in danger of being lost. BP’s Hayward told the BBC he hadn’t spoken directly to Obama since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. “There is no need for that,” Hayward said. “I have spoken to his key lieutenants.” BP and the Obama administration are working “hand-in-hand” to resolve the spill, Hayward said. The company has paid about half of the 35,000 claims submitted by Gulf residents and companies for income lost because of the spill, Darryl Willis, vice president of resources at BP America, said yesterday on a conference call. BP is awaiting documentation for the other claims, he said. Willis said the company’s claims spending through June may top $84 million. ‘First Call’ Hayward told investors June 4 on a conference call the spill has the “first call” on the company’s funds and financial consequences of the spill will be “severe.” Allen said relief-well operations to stop the leak will involve pumping mud to reduce pressure and placing a cement plug. He said this effort will be the “bottom kill exercise.” Allen said the “worst case” he sees is that a discharge continues until relief wells are completed in August. “In the long term, the threat from this well will not go away until the relief well has been drilled, pressure has been taken off and the well has been plugged,” Allen said. “In the meantime, we need to optimize our containment efforts.” To contact the reporter on this story: Edward Klump in Houston at eklump@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

BP Is Capturing 10,000 Barrels a Day From Gulf Spill, Chief Hayward Says

June 6, 2010

By Edward Klump June 6 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc plans to increase the oil- capture rate from its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico as the company tries to contain the worst oil spill in U.S. history. BP is collecting around 10,000 barrels of crude a day, Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward told the British Broadcasting Corp. today in a live interview in London. The well is estimated by government scientists to be gushing 12,000 to 19,000 barrels into the Gulf every day. A “cap” over the well is capturing “probably the vast majority” of the leaking oil , Hayward said. BP has “a further containment system to implement this week,” he said, adding that a permanent and hurricane-proof mechanism will be in place by the end of the month. U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said yesterday in a news conference that four vents on the cap remained open, allowing oil to flow through the cap and into the ocean. BP will try to close the vents when pressure is stabilized, Allen said. On June 4, Allen said BP was recovering oil at the rate of about 1,000 barrels a day. BP said yesterday that it collected 6,077 barrels of crude in the 24-hour period of June 4. “They are making adjustments to the systems and making sure they don’t increase the production rate until it’s safe to do so,” Allen said. Improvement Expected After the cap was put in place the night of June 3, gas reached a surface ship at about 11 p.m. local time, and oil was being piped to the ship about 10 minutes later, BP said yesterday on its website. “Improvement in oil collection is expected over the next several days,” the London-based company said yesterday on its website . The system can capture as much as 15,000 barrels a day, and BP will push toward that limit, Allen said. “I’d like to see us capture 90-plus percent of this flow,” Doug Suttles , BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said June 4 on CBS’s “Early Show.” “That’s possible with this design.” The shears used to prepare the well for the cap created a cut that was more jagged than had been hoped for, so there is isn’t a perfect seal between the cap and the well, Allen said. The company won’t know how bad the leakage is until it is capturing more oil, he said. History Lesson “History has taught us here to be cautiously optimistic, not overly optimistic,” Dan Pickering , an analyst at investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston, said yesterday. He said capturing 90 percent of the flow would be a “huge home run.” The spill, which has cost BP more than $1 billion, has soiled about 140 miles of shoreline in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, along with some 80 miles in Florida, the Coast Guard said yesterday. Gulf winds are moving the oil now in the water closer to the coasts of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, Allen said. He said oil in tar balls and patties is affecting areas from western Mississippi to Pensacola, Florida. The well began gushing oil after the Deepwater Horizon rig BP leased from Transocean Ltd. exploded on April 20 and sank two days later, resulting in the deaths of 11 workers. The leak is 40 miles (64 kilometers) off Louisiana’s coast under about 5,000 feet of water. Obama, Hayward President Barack Obama said communities along the Gulf Coast suffering because of the oil spill will be “made whole” with payments from BP and government aid. In his weekly address on the radio and Internet, which was taped June 4 in Grand Isle, Louisiana, Obama said livelihoods that have spanned generations are in danger of being lost. BP’s Hayward told the BBC he hadn’t spoken directly to Obama since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. “There is no need for that,” Hayward said. “I have spoken to his key lieutenants.” BP and the Obama administration are working “hand-in-hand” to resolve the spill, Hayward said. The company has paid about half of the 35,000 claims submitted by Gulf residents and companies for income lost because of the spill, Darryl Willis, vice president of resources at BP America, said yesterday on a conference call. BP is awaiting documentation for the other claims, he said. Willis said the company’s claims spending through June may top $84 million. ‘First Call’ Hayward told investors June 4 on a conference call the spill has the “first call” on the company’s funds and financial consequences of the spill will be “severe.” Allen said relief-well operations to stop the leak will involve pumping mud to reduce pressure and placing a cement plug. He said this effort will be the “bottom kill exercise.” Allen said the “worst case” he sees is that a discharge continues until relief wells are completed in August. “In the long term, the threat from this well will not go away until the relief well has been drilled, pressure has been taken off and the well has been plugged,” Allen said. “In the meantime, we need to optimize our containment efforts.” To contact the reporter on this story: Edward Klump in Houston at eklump@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

BP Increases Capture Rate From Leaking Gulf Oil Well

June 5, 2010

By Edward Klump June 5 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc increased the amount of oil it is capturing from its leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico to thousands of barrels a day as it tries to reduce the damage from the worst oil spill in U.S. history. BP said it collected 6,077 barrels of crude in the 24-hour period ended at midnight last night. The well is estimated by government scientists to be gushing 12,000 to 19,000 barrels into the Gulf every day. Four vents on a “cap” over the well remain open, allowing oil to flow through the cap and into the ocean, U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said today in a news conference. BP will try to close the vents when pressure is stabilized, Allen said. Yesterday, Allen said BP was recovering oil at the rate of about 1,000 barrels a day. “They are making adjustments to the systems and making sure they don’t increase the production rate until it’s safe to do so,” Allen said. After the cap was put in place the night of June 3, gas reached a surface ship at about 11 p.m. local time, and oil was being piped to the ship about 10 minutes later, BP said today. “Improvement in oil collection is expected over the next several days,” the London-based company said today on its website . The system can capture as much as 15,000 barrels a day, and BP will push toward that limit, Allen said. “I’d like to see us capture 90-plus percent of this flow,” Doug Suttles , BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said yesterday on CBS’s “Early Show.” “That’s possible with this design.” Jagged Cut The shears used to prepare the well for the cap created a cut that was more jagged than had been hoped for, so there is isn’t a perfect seal between the cap and the well, Allen said. The company won’t know how bad the leakage is until it is capturing more oil, he said. “History has taught us here to be cautiously optimistic, not overly optimistic,” said Dan Pickering , an analyst at investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston. He said capturing 90 percent of the flow would be a “huge home run.” The spill, which has cost BP more than $1 billion, has soiled about 140 miles of shoreline in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, along with some 80 miles in Florida, according to the Coast Guard. Tar Balls, Patties Gulf winds are moving the oil now in the water closer to the coasts of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, Allen said. He said oil in tar balls and patties is affecting areas from western Mississippi to Pensacola, Florida. The well began gushing oil after the Deepwater Horizon rig BP leased from Transocean Ltd. exploded on April 20 and sank two days later, resulting in the deaths of 11 workers. The leak is 40 miles (64 kilometers) off Louisiana’s coast under about 5,000 feet of water. President Barack Obama said communities along the Gulf Coast suffering because of the oil spill will be “made whole” with payments from BP and government aid. In his weekly address on the radio and Internet, which was taped yesterday in Grand Isle, Louisiana, Obama said livelihoods that have spanned generations are in danger of being lost. More Claims Paid The company has paid about half of the 35,000 claims submitted by Gulf residents and companies for income lost because of the spill, Darryl Willis, vice president of resources at BP America, said today on a conference call. BP is awaiting documentation for the other claims, he said. Willis said the company’s claims spending through June may top $84 million. BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward told investors yesterday on a conference call the spill has the “first call” on the company’s funds and financial consequences of the spill will be “severe.” Allen said relief-well operations to stop the leak will involve pumping mud to reduce pressure and placing a cement plug. He said this effort will be the “bottom kill exercise.” Allen said the “worst case” he sees is that a discharge continues until relief wells are completed in August. “In the long term, the threat from this well will not go away until the relief well has been drilled, pressure has been taken off and the well has been plugged,” Allen said. “In the meantime, we need to optimize our containment efforts.” To contact the reporter on this story: Edward Klump in Houston at eklump@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Israelis Support Netanyahu Charging Hypocrisy by Critics of Gaza Blockade

June 3, 2010

By Calev Ben-David June 4 (Bloomberg) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was unequivocal when he addressed the nation on the night of June 2 about the Gaza ship raid: “Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment.” His message that Israel was exercising its right to self- defense when naval forces boarded an aid flotilla, an operation that left nine pro-Palestinian activists on one ship dead at the end, resonated with Nechama Perelman, a 23-year-old tax adviser. “There is no need to apologize,” Perelman said while nursing her baby in the Jerusalem Mall the next day. “The army didn’t set out to kill people. It’s easy to judge from far away, and I don’t believe that anything we do will help us be loved by the world.” A poll of Israel’s Jewish population by the Maariv daily published on June 2 found 94.4 percent of respondents agreed it was necessary to stop the vessel, and 89.1 percent said Netanyahu shouldn’t resign over the matter. The opposition Kadima party has supported the government on the issue, and Netanyahu’s coalition has shown no signs of strain over the incident. These Israeli views illustrate the gap between how the Gaza flotilla confrontation is perceived at home and abroad. “I can’t remember a time over the past 30 years when Israel is so out of sync with the rest of the world, and not just its enemies,” said David Newman, professor of political science at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel’s south. “In the globalized world of 2010, where people travel and share and blog, I think it’s very dangerous for this country’s position.” No Blame In his address, Netanyahu, 60, made no mention of any change to Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip or reference to the hardships of its population, didn’t respond to calls by world leaders for an international inquiry into the May 31 deaths or make any suggestion that he or his government bore any blame for the incident. Just one week ago, Netanyahu was flying to Paris for Israel’s acceptance in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development before heading on to a planned White House meeting with President Barack Obama . Instead, he had to cut short his trip in Canada and return home without seeing Obama. The fatalities on one of the six ships defying Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip severely strained relations with Turkey, once its closest ally in the region, and led to the recall of South Africa’s ambassador to Jerusalem yesterday. All of the dead were Turkish; one was also a U.S. citizen. ‘Disproportionate’ French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Israel had used “disproportionate” force and German Chancellor Angela Merkel phoned Netanyahu to protest. Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac , said in 2006 that Israel’s military operations in Lebanon in response to the capture of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah were “disproportionate.” The international criticism has triggered the “Israeli Holocaust syndrome,” said political scientist Yaron Ezrahi of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in which Israelis see themselves as victims no matter what the circumstances. Still, he said, “Israeli public opinion is more plastic than is commonly assumed” when it comes to making concessions if they believe they are dealing with a genuine peace partner. Israel says its soldiers were ambushed on the ship by activists armed with clubs, knives and at least one gun, and opened fire only in self-defense. Witnesses among the activists say Israeli forces started the violence. Israel said it had issued numerous warnings to the Gaza-bound flotilla beforehand to change course for the port of Ashdod and unload there. Gaza Blockade Countries, including France and the U.K., oppose the blockade on Gaza, which Israel argues is needed to prevent the smuggling of rockets and weapons in the Palestinian coastal enclave controlled by Hamas. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and the European Union. About 330 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel since the end of Israel’s January 2008 operation in the territory, killing one foreign worker last March, the army says. While Netanyahu hasn’t escaped domestic criticism, most of it has focused solely on the execution of the military operation. The Maariv poll found that 62.7 percent of those interviewed said it should have been carried out in a different manner. The number of respondents and margin of error weren’t given. Netanyahu’s position has been helped by the reaction of Israel’s chief strategic ally. The U.S. has stopped short of criticizing the Israeli flotilla raid and has blocked Turkey’s proposal for a United Nations Security Council statement condemning it and calling for an independent international investigation. ‘Right to Know’ Vice President Joe Biden said in a June 2 interview on PBS television’s “ Charlie Rose Show ” that Israel has an “absolute right to know” what is being transported to Gaza and that the U.S. supports a “transparent and open” investigation led by Israel. Statements released by the White House say the incident “underscores” the need for progress toward a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “It was definitely a measured and responsible response, as we would expect,” said Jonathan Peled, the spokesman for Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren . ”The administration is working very closely, hand-in-hand with Israel to contain the situation and to work on promoting the efforts to bring about direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,” Peled said. “We are exploring ways to reconcile between improving the humanitarian situation and Israel’s security needs.” Bush and Clinton In following this course, the Obama administration is taking an approach similar to that of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton , who maintained U.S. support for Israel when it faced international criticism. While most Israelis support the operation, several Israeli Arab leaders took part in the flotilla, including Islamic Association leader Sheik Raed Salah and legislator Hanin Zoabi. She was later at the center of a debate in parliament that almost ended in fisticuffs as some government members rushed the speakers’ podium in protest when she ascended to address the chamber. Israelis assume that the world will have a “Pavlovian response when there is an outbreak of violence between Israelis and Arabs,” said Mark Heller , principal research fellow at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies. “If you perceive this to be a long-term trend, one has to ask what it does to Israel’s relation to the rest of the world and its long-term viability,” Heller said. To contact the reporter on this story: Calev Ben-David in Jerusalem at cbendavid@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Gulf Oil Spill: Unanswered Questions

May 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — The impatient nation isn’t getting answers fast enough in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. What exactly went wrong? Who messed up? How much oil is pouring into the Gulf? Can the oil get to Florida and even up the Atlantic coast? What will the environmental and economic consequences be? Will the chemicals used to disperse the oil leave their own destructive legacy? As the oil spreads, people on the Gulf Coast, in Washington and elsewhere want answers in a New York minute. But these mysteries of the deep are not yielding easily. Over three weeks, more than a dozen congressional hearings and scores of hours of witness testimony did not get to the rupture’s cause or its full effects. Many more inquiries are ahead. But then such hearings, especially in an election year, are often designed more to give lawmakers a stage to rant against a politically safe target than to find facts. Vital clues, such as the burned-out behemoth of a rig and a safety device that was supposed to prevent such a blowout, rest under a mile of water accessible only by remote-controlled vessels. Some of the crewmen who manned the rig at the moment of crisis, including two responsible for shutting the oil flow, are dead. The murkiness isn’t just as the ocean bottom. It’s now acknowledged by the government that federal regulators were too close to the oil industry and, as a consequence, probably too lax in enforcing safety rules. But did that cronyism somehow contribute to the spill? President Barack Obama raised the possibility Thursday that the project might never have been approved if his administration had acted more aggressively to overhaul the Interior Department agency that oversees offshore drilling. If the changes taking place now “had been happening fast enough,” he said, “this might have been caught. Now, it’s possible that it might not have been caught.” A look at some knowns and unknowns as BP PLC, the well’s owner, carries out its risky “top kill” operation to seal the gaping wound a mile down: FALSE CONFIDENCE: BP and regulators widely believed that because there had never been such a catastrophic blowout in the Gulf, it would not happen – and that whatever accident occurred could be contained even in a mile of water. That bravado is reminiscent of another environmental crisis three decades ago, when the nuclear industry said a reactor meltdown could not happen. Then it did, Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. In another age, they also said the Titanic was unsinkable. METHANE RUSH: Human error and mechanical failure probably both played a part in the accident. The crisis began late on the night of April 20 with an unexpectedly powerful rush of methane gas up the well pipe to the sea surface. The rush was so powerful that it shot heavy material – designed to keep downward pressure inside the pipe – to a nearby supply vessel. The state-of-the-art Deepwater Horizon drilling rig was consumed with such speed that, as Steve Newman, president of rig owner Transocean told senators, “the drill crew had very little, if any, time to react.” Eleven crew members died and 115 barely escaped. EARLY WARNING? The House Energy and Commerce Committee collected 100,000 pages of documents from BP, Transocean and others, and produced evidence that the crew had hints of a developing problem on the day of the explosion: worrisome pressure readings in the pipe, which was being sealed for future oil production. This could have been a tip-off to an intrusion of methane gas. But why? That’s still an unknown. Could the cement injected into the pipes have been deficient? Was it a mistake to replace some of the “mud” used to apply downward pressure in the pipes with lighter seawater before a final cement cap was applied? The seawater theory appeared to gain more credence this past week at a hearing in New Orleans. According to witness statements, senior managers worried BP was “taking shortcuts” by replacing heavy drilling fluid with saltwater in the well. Statements from oil rig workers and a congressional memo about a BP internal investigation of the blast indicated warning signs were ignored. Tests less than an hour before the blowout found a buildup of pressure indicating “a very large abnormality,” BP’s investigator said, according to the congressional memo. Still, the rig team was “satisfied” that another test was successful and resumed adding the sea water, said the memo by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich. Waxman is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee; Stupak heads the subcommittee on oversight and investigations. Also at the New Orleans hearing, Douglas Brown, the rig’s chief mechanic, testified about what he described as a “skirmish” between the “company man” – a BP official – and three rig employees during a meeting the day of the explosion. BP owns the well; Transocean was doing the drilling. “The driller outlined what would be taking place, but the company man stood up and said ‘We’ll be having some changes to that,’” Brown testified. He said the three other workers initially disagreed but “the company man said ‘This is how it’s going to be.’” FAIL-SAFE FAILURE? Mysteries persist about the blowout preventer, the now-crippled five-story structure sitting atop the well. It was supposed to seal the well pipe at the sea bottom in an eruption. While it didn’t close – or may have closed partially – hearings have produced no clear picture of why it didn’t plug the well. Documents emerged showing that a part of the device had a hydraulic leak, which would have reduced its effectiveness, and that a passive “deadman” trigger had a low, perhaps even dead, battery. Newman repeatedly told lawmakers there was no evidence that the device itself failed and suggested debris might have been forced into the device by the explosive force of the surging gas. HOW MUCH OIL? Not even the amount of oil gushing from the well has been pinpointed. On Thursday, officials upped their estimate, saying the well has been gushing between 504,000 and more than 1 million gallons a day into the Gulf. BP and the Coast Guard estimated soon after the explosion that about 210,000 gallons a day were leaking. WHERE WILL IT GO? There’s almost as much uncertainty about what is happening to the oil already in the water. Lawmakers got little explanation about what appears to be a large plume of oil moving beneath the water surface. Was it oil or a mixture of oil and chemicals? “Unknown,” said Jane Lubchenco, one of the government’s top marine scientists. How much oil will reach the ecologically precious coastal marshes is still uncertain. If oil gets into a fast-moving Gulf “loop’” current it could hit the coral reefs of the Florida Keys and even move around up the Atlantic Coast. Marine scientists say it’s not clear how much damage it will cause because the oil might by then may be significantly degraded. Even one of the bedrock tools for fighting the oil spill – chemicals that break up the oil so it degrades more easily – has raised more questions than answers. The chemicals are being used in amounts and at water depths never envisioned. “The long term-effects (of the dispersant chemicals) on aquatic life are still unknown,” said the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson. And this from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar: “There are many facts which are still unknown. I know enough to know there were a lot of problems here.” ___ Online: Live video of oil spill: http://tinyurl.com/2c8y3rj

Read the full article →

U.S. Stocks Halt Global Advance on Korea While Treasuries Rally

May 28, 2010

By Michael P. Regan and Elizabeth Stanton May 28 (Bloomberg) — A drop in U.S. stocks halted a global advance and Treasuries rose as economic reports that missed estimates damped optimism about the strength of the recovery and concern grew that tensions are escalating on the Korean peninsula. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index slipped 0.6 percent to 1,096.19 at 11:58 a.m. in New York, led by petroleum companies after U.S. President Barack Obama extended a moratorium on deep- water drilling. Oil erased gains after rallying as much as 1.6 percent to more than $75 a barrel. Ten-year Treasury yields decreased 4 basis points to 3.32 percent after surging 17 basis points yesterday. U.S. consumer spending was unexpectedly unchanged in April as Americans used higher wages to rebuild savings, Commerce Department data showed, while the Institute for Supply Management-Chicago Inc.’s business barometer fell more than the median economist projection. Equities extended losses as a North Korean general warned of “all out war” if any accidental clashes with South Korea break out. “This definitely sent some jitters through the market,” Craig Peckham , equity product strategist at Jefferies Group Inc. in New York, said of the tensions in Korea. “People seem to be rattled by it, but also are receiving the information a little bit skeptically. The timing seemed peculiar given that it’s the middle of the night in Korea.” ‘All Out War’ The S&P 500 fell to its low of the day after North Korean Major General Pak Rim Su disputed the results of the international investigation that found his nation sank a South Korean warship. He said “any accidental clash that may break out in the waters of the West Sea of Korea or in areas along the Demilitarized Zone will lead to all-out war,” according to a statement from North Korea’s official news organization. Less than 3.8 billion shares changed hands so far today on all U.S. exchanges, 52 percent below the same time last week, as trading slowed before the Memorial Day holiday. “With volumes being as they are today ahead of the holiday weekend, there is not much in the way of conviction among traders,” said Mark Turner , head of U.S. sales trading at Instinet LLC, which handles about 4 percent of U.S. equity trading volume. “So any headline has the potential to move the market. And the situation in North Korea has especially been in our crosshairs.” The retreat in the S&P 500 today came after the benchmark index rallied 3.3 percent yesterday as China assured investors it was committed to maintaining European investments even as a sovereign debt crisis rattles confidence in the region. Weekly, Monthly Returns The S&P 500 clung to a 0.8 percent advance for the week, while the MSCI World Index of shares in 24 developed nations is up 1 percent over the past five days. This week’s gains pared a May drop in the MSCI World to 9.5 percent. The S&P 500 is down 7.6 percent in May. Both are headed for their deepest monthly declines since February 2009. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index erased gains, dropping 0.3 percent after rallying as much as 0.7 percent. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index climbed 1.5 percent. BP Plc slid 6 percent in London after Europe’s second- largest oil company said procedures to plug a leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico may last another day or two. BP added rubber golf balls and scraps to the mud it was pumping into its leaking Gulf of Mexico oil well in an effort to stop the spill. Oilfield Services Shares Baker Hughes Inc., Halliburton Co., Transocean Ltd. and Schlumberger Ltd. slumped at least 3.7 percent to lead declines in U.S. energy shares. Obama is suspending exploration in two areas off Alaska, canceling pending lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and proposed sales off Virginia’s coast, extending by six months a moratorium on deepwater drilling permits and suspending operations at all 33 exploratory wells being drilled in the Gulf. Treasuries headed for the biggest monthly gain since January, as concern Europe’s fiscal crisis will slow economic growth lifted demand for the safety of government debt and data showed U.S. inflation remained subdued. The 10-year touched 3.06 percent on May 25, the lowest level since April 2009. Its 17 basis-point gain yesterday was the most since June. Crude oil for July delivery slipped 0.1 percent to $74.45 a barrel in New York trading. Copper for July delivery slipped 0.6 percent to $3.1405 a pound in New York. Nickel, tin and zinc also retreated in London. Default Swaps Rise The cost to protect against corporate defaults in the U.S. rose, erasing earlier declines. The Markit CDX North America Investment Grade Index Series 14, which investors use to hedge against losses on corporate debt or to speculate on creditworthiness, increased 2.7 basis points to a mid-price of 118.53 basis points, according to Markit Group Ltd. The index typically falls as investor confidence improves and rises as it deteriorates. Credit markets slowed this month, with global companies selling the smallest amount of bonds in a decade, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Borrowers issued $61.1 billion of notes in currencies from dollars to yen, a third of April’s tally and the least since December 2000. The extra yield investors demand to hold the securities instead of benchmark government debt widened 44 basis points to 193, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show, the biggest increase since the aftermath of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s collapse. To contact the reporters on this story: Michael P. Regan in New York at mregan12@bloomberg.net ; Elizabeth Stanton in New York at estanton@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: "No More Secrecy": Open The Wall Street Negotiations and Empower Voters

May 26, 2010

The Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), CREDO, and MoveOn have launched a petition campaign to ensure that the House/Senate deliberations on financial reform be “fully transparent.” The good news? The government has the ability, the resources, and the talent to make this process the breakthrough in “open government” the President has long promised. The bad news? Anything less than “full” transparency will lead to a weaker bill, less public confidence in government, and even more anti-incumbent anger. The goals must be clear: First, a truly transparent process should reduce the ability of lobbyists and other backroom dealers to influence the proceedings. Second, it must let the American people see which elected officials are defending them and which are carrying water for Wall Street. Third, the process should give the public both the time and the tools to make an informed decision about the final bill – and then express their feelings to their representatives. Robert Borosage of CAF (where I am a Fellow) explained the reasons for the petition to Brian Beutler of TPM : “… (W)e want the legislation put online, the differences put online, the issues they’re going to talk about put online.” The urgency of those comments is underscored by the fact that conference participants have collectively received nearly $58 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate sectors most affected by this bill. It is time for the President to weigh in, too. After all, he articulated a vision of open government – and promised to deliver it – during a forceful campaign speech in 2008 : “I will make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the People’s business,” he said. “I am going to make it impossible for congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one is looking because, when I’m president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy. That’s a commitment I’m going to make to you as President: No more secrecy.” The President outlined a clear vision of open government in that speech: “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you, the public, will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it so that you know what your government is doing. When there are meetings between government lobbyists and a government agency, we will put as many of those meetings as possible on line for every American to watch. When there’s a tax bill being debated in Congress, you will know the names of the corporations that would benefit and how much money they would get, and we will put every corporate tax break and every pork-barrel project on line for every American to see. You will know who asked for them, and you can decide whether your representative is actually representing you.” Chairman Barney Frank of the House Financial Services Committee promised televised hearings back in March, saying “nothing will be ratified without a public debate.” But he appeared to roll back his pledge somewhat this week . “”The negotiations will go on in private ,” Frank said, “but the results of any discussion are going to have to be voted on.” Off-camera negotiation is more business as usual. Up-or-down votes on pre-agreed deals is not full transparency, no matter how much speechmaking is allowed beforehand. Elected officials could still wheel and deal for Wall Street in private and then strike a populist pose in public. Chairman Frank also said that conference participants won’t have much personal power. “I believe that we… will be more the agents of collective decision-making than autonomous deciders,” he said. That means the real dealmaking will take place in the caucuses, especially the Dems’. If the parties won’t open their caucuses to public scrutiny, then at a minimum both parties should express their “collective” positions well in advance of the conference sessions. The White House can help … and it should. First, it should use its voice and its influence to push for full transparency. Then it should provide any technical resources needed, since it has much greater resources than Congress. The public should be able to save and review portions of the televised debate online, with links to the same documents, briefing books, and memos provided to the conferees. Beth Noveck , the Administration’s Chief Technology Officer for Open Government, would be an ideal candidate to lead the effort. She’s not well known to the general public, but she’s one of the most interesting and imaginative thinkers operating in government today. Novick, or someone like her, could marshal the resources needed to deliver on the public’s behalf. Given that the Administration’s a major player in the proceedings, their actions should also be visible to the public. If, for example, they’re expressing an ambiguously-phrased coolness toward Lincoln’s derivatives amendment in public, we should know how they’re addressing the issue in negotiations. (White House participation would also help clear the air after criticisms of its level of openness during the health reform process, from Nancy Pelosi and other progressives as well as Republicans). Some of these suggestions may seem like “blue sky” ideas, although they’re easily executed with the technology now available. At the very least, however,”full transparency” must mean 1) holding all the meetings in public, 2) giving the public online access to each and every document and memo provided to the conferees, and 3) giving the public five days to review the final bill before a vote is held. Please sign this petition to demand that these minimum requirements for public transparency are met. Voters of the future may thank you. Your checkbook probably will, too. _________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

`Shrek Forever After’ Leads Box Office With $71.3 Million in Ticket Sales

May 23, 2010

By Michael White and Thom Weidlich May 23 (Bloomberg) — “Shrek Forever After” opened as the top movie in U.S. and Canadian theaters over the weekend, taking in $71.3 million for producer DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. and distributor Paramount Pictures. “Iron Man 2” dropped to second place with sales of $26.6 million, researcher Hollywood.com Box-Office said today in an e- mailed statement. The 3-D “Shrek Forever After” is the fourth film in the series about a good-natured ogre voiced by Mike Myers . The first three movies generated $2.2 billion in worldwide ticket sales, according to Box Office Mojo. The new film was expected to take in $105 million in it’s opening in the U.S. and Canada, the estimate of Gitesh Pandya , editor of Box Office Guru LLC. “This is definitely on the lower end of expectations for the film,” Paul Dergarabedian , president of the box-office division of Hollywood.com, said in a phone interview today. “The last Shrek posted the biggest animated opening of all time, with $121.6 million.” In “Forever After,” Shrek’s past and friendships are erased after he is lured into an alternate universe. He must battle evil forces to rebuild relationships and win back his family. DreamWorks Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Katzenberg said on a May 11 conference call that the movie would be the series’ final installment. 21 3-D Films The film is the fourth of 21 three-dimensional films that Hollywood studios plan to release this year. Before this weekend, the format had accounted for 23 percent of the year’s $3.85 billion in ticket sales, according to Hollywood.com. The weekend’s other new film, the comedy “MacGruber” from NBC Universal, opened in sixth place, taking in $4.15 million. The film is based on Will Forte’s sketch on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” television show. The film is a satire of the 1980s “MacGyver” TV series about a secret agent whose scientific knowledge enables him to build weapons from ordinary materials. “Iron Man 2,” produced by Walt Disney Co.’s Marvel and distributed by Viacom Inc.’s Paramount, has taken in $251.3 million since its May 7 release, Hollywood.com said. “Robin Hood” fell to third place with $18.7 million for General Electric Co.’s Universal Pictures. The film from director Ridley Scott stars Russell Crowe in the title role. “Letters to Juliet,” from Summit Entertainment LLC, was fourth with $9.1 million. The drama stars Amanda Seyfried as an American girl on vacation in Italy who embarks on a quest to reunite a pair of long-lost lovers. Sales Climb, Attendance Slips “Just Wright” was fifth with sales of $4.23 million for News Corp.’s Fox Searchlight. The romantic comedy, featuring Queen Latifah and the rapper Common, tells the story of a physical therapist who falls in love with the basketball player she is helping to recover from an injury. Weekend sales for the top 12 films fell 13 percent to $147.4 million from $169.8 million a year earlier, which was the Memorial Day holiday in the U.S., Hollywood.com said. Year-to- date receipts total $4 billion, up 4.8 percent from $3.86 billion. Attendance has fallen 1.7 percent this year. To contact the reporters on this story: Michael White in Los Angeles at mwhite8@bloomberg.net ; Thom Weidlich in New York at tweidlich@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Thai Army Assault Ignites Bangkok Riots in Sign of Festering Instability

May 19, 2010

By Daniel Ten Kate and Supunnabul Suwannakij May 20 (Bloomberg) — Thai authorities vowed to restore order after the forced surrender of anti-government protesters sparked riots across Bangkok, threatening renewed political instability as mobs burned banks, shopping malls and the stock exchange. The government imposed an 8 p.m. curfew in a third of the country and demanded all television stations run state programming. Reports of disturbances in northeast Thailand, where many of the demonstrators live, show the widening social rifts that may thwart political reconciliation. “Clearing the demonstrators is the easy part,” said Duncan McCargo , a professor of Southeast Asian politics at the University of Leeds. By relying on force, “authorities have lost the opportunity to shape the aftermath of the protests and risk provoking an even more alarming conflict.” Rioters set at least 25 buildings afire in Bangkok and northeast Thailand, including a luxury shopping mall and television news station. They torched a city hall in Udon Thani province and seized a government building in Khon Kaen . “We will continue to fight for democracy; this is not our day,” Nattawut Saikuar , one of several Red Shirt leaders, said when he arrived at the police station in comments broadcast by TNN News. “We have been trying to do our best for the country to be truly owned by the people.” Weapons Caches Security forces found weapons caches in the central Bangkok protest site occupied by demonstrators since April 3, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said last night. He vowed harsh punishments for “terrorists” vandalizing the city among the red shirt protesters, who say his rule is illegitimate. Police and soldiers may use guns to “prevent any action that will further destabilize the country,” Tarit Pengdit, director-general of the Department of Special Investigation, said last night. Arsonists may face the death penalty, he said. Few cars traveled on Bangkok roads last night as citizens heeded the curfew, television footage showed. One fire in the city substantially damaged the stock exchange, Thamon Onketpol, an adviser to the governor of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration , told Thai PBS television. After the military crackdown, about 800 children, women and elderly protesters took shelter in a temple between two burning shopping malls, Thai PBS television network said. Gunfire crackled and explosions rocked the city into the night after protest leaders were escorted from the camp’s main stage to a nearby police station. The Central World shopping mall was gutted by flames, fire official Narunart Boonkong said. Six Killed Street battles in the past week between security forces and demonstrators contributed to Thailand’s deadliest political turmoil in almost two decades. Yesterday’s clashes killed six people, including an Italian journalist, and injured 58, according to a statement on the website of the Bangkok Emergency Medical Service. The health ministry said eight people were hurt in clashes outside Bangkok. Nattawut and fellow activist Jatuporn Prompam told supporters from the main stage that they decided to surrender to avoid further bloodshed. Kasikornbank Pcl, Thailand’s third-biggest bank by assets, said a fire broke out at a branch on Rama IV Road near the main protest area. PBS reported fires in Siam Square at a Bangkok Bank Pcl branch , a Siam City Bank Pcl branch and a local theater. Power was cut at the JW Marriott Bangkok hotel . The benchmark SET Index rose 0.7 percent yesterday before closing for the day at the morning break. The baht fell 0.1 percent. ‘Special Programs’ Foreigners should carry identification when traveling, government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said, vowing that security forces will provide stability and security during the night. Television channels will switch to “special programs,” he said. Exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra , to whom many of the protesters express loyalty, said the decision to surrender prevented more casualties. “I appreciate the Red Shirt leaders’ move to save lives by surrendering to police,” he said on his Twitter account. “I am so sorry for those who lost their lives and got injured.” Abhisit’s five-part proposal to end the national divide includes measures to safeguard the monarchy, address economic inequality, ensure an independent media, create a body to investigate political violence and assess ways to change the constitution and disputed laws. ‘Even Deeper’ “After today, the divisions in the country will get even deeper,” said Michael Nelson, a visiting scholar at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. “How can you have a stable political system when two large areas of the country are no-go zones for the two major political parties?” Thaksin, a 60-year-old billionaire, won over the poor in the northeast of the country by giving them cheap health care and loans. The demonstrators, angered by one of Asia’s widest income gaps, say Abhisit, 45, embodies a privileged class of military officers, judges, bureaucrats and royal advisers that sits above the law. Thaksin, who was ousted by the Thai army in 2006, fled the country in 2008 before a court sentenced him to two years in prison for helping his wife buy land from the government while still in power. Since 1946, when King Bhumibol Adulyadej took the Thai throne as an 18-year-old, Thailand has seen nine coups and more than 20 prime ministers. Only two of 17 constitutions since absolute monarchy ended in 1932 have mandated parliaments that are entirely elected. The king, who is revered across the nation, has been in hospital since Sept. 19 and hasn’t spoken publicly about the current demonstrations. Abhisit’s party hasn’t won the most seats in a nationwide vote since 1992. He was picked by legislators in December 2008 after a court dissolved the pro-Thaksin ruling party for election fraud. The decision coincided with the seizure of Bangkok’s airports by protesters wearing yellow shirts who oppose Thaksin. To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Ten Kate in Bangkok at dtenkate@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Attempt To Cap ATM Fees At 50 Cents Blocked In Senate

May 18, 2010

Tom Harkin was stifled in his effort Tuesday evening to bring a measure to the Senate floor that would cap ATM fees at 50 cents. Harkin (D-Iowa) first introduced his amendment on May 4 and has yet to get a vote. With the close of debate on Wall Street reform rapidly approaching, Harkin went straight to the floor to ask the chamber’s consent to vote, conceding that he would be satisfied with a mere five minutes of debate. Banks, both small and large, oppose the amendment and argue that capping fees will reduce the number of privately available ATMs at convenience stores and elsewhere as well as the number of bank-owned cash machines. Harkin says that an average ATM transaction costs 37 cents. Harkin’s amendment is just one of several consumer friendly measures that has support but is being cut off by Republican objections and the coming end of the floor debate. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to cut off good consumer amendments because of cloture,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). Cantwell, along with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is sponsoring an amendment that would reinstate Glass-Steagall, which forces banks to split off investment banking and commercial banking. Cantwell said that the managers of the bill on the floor are telling her that her amendment is not germane and so can’t be considered after cloture. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from voting on three amendments Tuesday that are strongly opposed by Wall Street. The combination of the GOP obstruction and Democratic leadership urgency to finish the bill threatens to cut off key consumer protection amendments. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top-ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, rose to object to a vote on one of the most talked-about amendments, cosponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Levin-Merkley would ban commercial banks from trading for their own benefit with taxpayer-backed money. Shelby also objected to an amendment from Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) that would rein in predatory practices of payday lenders and one from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) that would have banned naked credit default swaps, which were at the heart of the financial crisis. Dorgan’s amendment was expected to fail, but Levin-Merkley had been surging in recent days. Merkley took the Senate floor after Harkin and once again called his amendment up for a vote, but Shelby objected again on behalf of coleagues. Merkley demanded to know who was objecting. “Myself, and a lot of others around here,” he said, waving his hand at the GOP side of the aisle. Merkley asked him to name names. Shelby replied that he was objecting on behalf of himself. (Only one Senator is needed to object.) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has an amendment that would allow states to cap interest rates on credit cards. He said Tuesday that he was working with Dodd to get a vote and that it has a chance to be ruled germane. But the only amendment that is certain to be ruled germane, said a Democratic leadership aide, is one that makes it weaker. From Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), the measure would exempt auto dealers from the purview of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the bill would create. The only way for an amendment to come to the floor without unanimous consent, which Republicans can object to, is to file cloture to defeat a filibuster. That requires 60 votes but, more importantly, takes several days of floor time. And the Senate has a war it needs to fund. Levin took the floor after Merkley and vowed to bring the amendment up again on Wednesday. “Wall Street’s got a long arm swarming around this place,” he said. Democrats argued with themselves and with the GOP late into the night Tuesday in a session unruly and disorganized even by Senate standards. It tested Harkin’s nerves and led to the following exchange with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Harkin takes the aggressive position that if he can’t get a vote on his ATM amendment, he doesn’t want one on his other amendment, either, dealing with annuities. Harkin: I want to be heard on this amendment. So we were told to stay here tonight so we could offer amendments. I’ve had an amendment pending since this bill was brought to the floor. I’ve not been able to bring it up. I’ve not been able to bring it up. We were told we could stay here tonight and offer amendments. So in good faith, I stayed here tonight to offer my amendment. Now I’m told we can’t offer amendments because there is a pending amendment and you can’t set it aside. What kind of games are being played around here? I’ve had this amendment pending ever since the beginning. And I have not been allowed to bring it up. And of course with cloture tomorrow, it would fall. So what does this mean that we should stay around here and offer amendments tonight when there’s a pending amendment you can’t set aside? Well, Mr. President, if that’s the game you’re going to play, I’m going to put in a quorum call and we won’t call it off. Reid: Will the Senator yield — Mr. President? Would my friend yield without his losing the floor for a question? Harkin: Without losing my right to the floor. Reid: If the conversations we just completed over here–trying to work something out for the rest of the evening…it is my understanding that the minority, the Republicans, agreed to allow your amendment dealing with annuities to come up, okay? In the conversation we had over here just a few minutes ago, The Republicans and Senator Dodd and his staff thought it would be appropriate to bring up your amendment dealing with annuities. That was part of the general agreement that we had worked out over here. Harkin: Well, I had this amendment. I have my ATM amendment and then there was an annuities amendment. Reid: The annuities amendment is what the conversation was. Harkin: This is the ATM amendment I had filed since the beginning, I would say to my leader, that I had filed since this bill was brought on the floor. Reid: What about the annuity amendment? Harkin: I have that amendment, too. I didn’t know there was a limit. I have two amendments. I have an annuity amendments and I have the ATM amendment. Reid: I guess my questions through the chair to my friend from Iowa is, rather than go into quorum call tonight, you could always do that some other time. I think it would be more appropriate if your amendment dealing with annuities — there are other amendments that have been agreed to, we could see if we could dispose of those. Harkin: No, I will not be able to. Because there will ago cloture vote tomorrow and I will have been precluded for three weeks from offering my amendment. And, you know, that’s not quite fair ball around here. Reid: But at least – but, I would say — Harkin: I had only asked for — I said I’d do my amendment in five minutes. I don’t need to take much time with my amendment. Reid: But I say again through the chair to my friend, it seems that it would be better that you would have the opportunity at least to get the annuity amendment, which a number of us believe is a very important amendment, and I would feel — I think it would be better that we were able to at least get rid of that amendment in a positive way, because I think there’s a very important amendment. If I had to choose between your ATM amendment or the — the amendment dealing with annuities, it would be hard for me to make a choice which one is the more important amendment. So it is not a question of not having two amendments. It is a question of, couldn’t we atleast dispose of one of them, which is an important amendment? Otherwise the way this train is going, we may never get to the annuity amendment. Harkin: Well, I say to my — Mr. President, I say to my friend, the leader, that we seem to have an impasse here. I have an annuities amendment. I don’t know what’s going to happen to that. I don’t know if they’re going to bring it up or not bring it up. If they’re going to vote on it or not vote on it. I have an ATM amendment that I’ve tried to bring up. I heard earlier my friend from Connecticut — he is my friend, I respect him highly, he knows that — but he said, stay around here and offer amendments. Well, I just offered an amendment and I can’t offer an amendment because they won’t set aside the pending amendment. Reid: I am not going to belabor the point, Mr. President, other than to say to my friend, there’s been a tentative agreement between the two managers of the bill, including the — offering your amendment dealing with annuities. That’s an important amendment of – I support it a lot. I think the other amendment is good, too, but I — we don’t have an agreement on both of them. We do on one of them. It doesn’t seem — Harkin: Well, Mr. President, I say then, I think until we find something out and get something worked out, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Wall Street: Terminators in the Casino

May 17, 2010

Anyone who’s ever seen a Terminator movie knows that civilization ended when a computer system called “Skynet” came alive and tried to terminate the human race by starting a nuclear apocalypse. After last week’s “flash crash” on Wall Street, they might have wondered if Skynet wasn’t working on a financial apocalypse instead. We still don’t know what happened more than a week later, and a new SEC study will probably raise more questions than it answers. Here’s what we do know: Wall Street has become such a high-speed, high-tech gambling house that it can be plunged into chaos without anybody having a clue what’s happening or the wherewithal to prevent it. “Real time” – where the effects of ultrafast computer events are perceived at human speed – is never less “real” than it is where Wall Street is concerned. As a reggae rapper named Big Youth once said, “If you ride like lightning you’ll crash like thunder.” You probably know the story by now: In a few short minutes the stock market – supposedly protected by both regulations and sophisticated software – lost 9.2% of its value. There was wild trading in Proctor & Gamble, once the target of ‘satanic cult’ rumors. (Hmm …) Boston Beer Company, which opened at $59.44, dropped to zero. Everything returned to something like “normal” eventually, after the “ghost in the machine” returned to its lair. According to Fox Business News , the SEC is about to release a report saying that the 17-minute plunge was caused primarily by “human error.” But a number of other theories have also made the rounds, and the SEC report is unlikely to end the speculation. In the past week there has been speculation that: A “fat fingered” employee typed “million” rather than “billion” into a major trade. Are these systems really so badly designed? A hacker invaded the trading systems. Algorithmic (computer-driven) trading ran amok. Large banks and traders

Read the full article →

Thai Renegade General Shot in Head as Forces Confront Bangkok Protesters

May 13, 2010

By Supunnabul Suwannakij and Daniel Ten Kate May 13 (Bloomberg) — A renegade Thai general backing anti- government protesters in a central Bangkok commercial district was shot in the head as security forces moved to seal off an area where 6,000 protesters are based. Major-General Khattiya Sawisdipol, an active-duty soldier who helped build barricades around the business district, was shot during an interview with the New York Times, the newspaper reported. Gunshots and a grenade injured others on Silom Road , a business artery next to the protest site, Channel 5 reported. “I have heard he is dead,” Sean Boonpracong , a spokesman for the protest group, said by phone, referring to the general known as Seh Daeng. “Within the past couple of days protesters were counting on him to provide combat experience to the guards on the barricades. It’s a psychological blow.” The shooting may spark more violent clashes after efforts to find a peaceful solution to the two-month standoff broke down. Clashes between troops and protesters killed 29 people over the past two months, Thailand’s worst political violence in 18 years. Khattiya, one of nine protest leaders facing terrorism charges, is unconscious in the intensive care unit of a Bangkok hospital, Samart Ariyakul, a doctor from Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s medical department, said in an interview with state-owned Thai PBS television. No other injuries were reported, according to a government-run emergency response center. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva earlier withdrew an offer of a Nov. 14 election when protesters failed to disperse by a midnight deadline. The army began an operation to seal off the area, cutting electricity, water and phone signals. Squeezing Protesters Residents and businesses were earlier asked to vacate the downtown Ratchaprasong shopping district occupied by demonstrators, an area about the size of New York’s Central Park. Soldiers aim to “block and squeeze” the site in the center of the Thai capital and will only use live ammunition if demonstrators approach troops, army spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd told reporters before reports of gunfire emerged. “We don’t want their lives,” he said. “We will use weapons only to stop their moves.” Abhisit last week said he would cut his term short by 13 months in a bid to end the rallies, which have disrupted businesses and hurt the economy. Protesters refused to disperse even after saying they agreed with the November election, prompting Abhisit to rescind the offer. The army plans to create disruptions throughout the night, including starting fires, to justify the dispersal of protesters early tomorrow, demonstration leader Jatuporn Prompan told reporters. The Red Shirts, who mostly support fugitive ex-leader Thaksin Shinawatra , have defied a state of emergency since April 7. Rallying Support in North “We won’t move even though force will be used against us,” said Nattawut Saikuar, another leader. The demonstrators are coordinating with supporters in northern areas of the country to fight back in the event of a crackdown. Thailand’s SET Index fell 0.9 percent, bucking gains across Asia, on concern further bloodshed will deter tourism and curb economic growth. Security forces had recommended that Abhisit declare a state of emergency in 15 provinces in the central, north and northeast of the country to contain unrest, Sansern said. “The political situation is worsening and people are scared,” said Chatchawan Jumruswittayawong, a foreign-exchange trader at Bank of Ayudhya Pcl in Bangkok. “The situation is still very uncertain and people are worried about the impact on the economy.” Baht Reverses Gain The baht fell 0.1 percent to 32.34 per dollar, reversing earlier gains. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index rose 1.7 percent after pledges by Spain and the U.K. to cut their budget deficits eased concern Europe’s debt crisis will spread. “The Red Shirts presumably now will be emboldened to stay in the streets and provoke a crackdown that results in bloodshed,” Thitinan Pongsudhirak , a political science lecturer at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, said in an interview in Hong Kong today. “They have become intransigent.” The government move to seal off the site is the first attempted blockade since demonstrators claimed the area on April 3. The protest group has set up barricades of bamboo spears and rubber tires. “Since they didn’t end the protest, that means they reject the offer” of November elections, Abhisit told reporters in Bangkok today. “The election date is now up to me to decide.” The Red Shirts will rally “indefinitely,” leader Jatuporn Prompan said today, urging supporters to join them before police surround the area. “We will continue to fight,” he said. The protesters backed away from supporting Abhisit’s election plan this week, attaching new conditions including criminal charges against Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban . The protest site contains dozens of office buildings and condominiums, as well as two hospitals, including one right next to the main stage. As many as 40 schools scheduled to open for classes on May 17 may be affected, Education Minister Chinnaworn Boonyakiat said. To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Ten Kate in Bangkok at dtenkate@bloomberg.net ; Yumi Teso in Bangkok at yteso1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Europe Financial Defense Package: Agreement Reached On Massive Preemptive Bailout

May 9, 2010

BRUSSELS — European Union finance ministers agreed Monday on a euro750 billion EU and International Monetary Fund safety net for troubled eurozone countries, hoping it will keep markets from targeting the weaker members of the 16 countries that use the embattled euro. Under the three-year aid plan, the EU Commission will make euro60 billion ($75 billion) available while countries from the 16-nation eurozone would promise bilateral backing for euro440 billion ($570 billion). The IMF would contribute an additional sum of at least half of the EU’s total contribution, or euro250 billion, Spanish Finance Minister Elena Salgado said. “We are placing considerable sums in the interest of stability in Europe,” she said after marathon 11-hour talks in an emergency finance ministers’ meeting. The talks were called on Friday night after a eurozone summit in Brussels amid concerns that the financial crisis sparked by Greece’s runaway debt problems had begun to spread to other financially troubled eurozone countries such as Portugal and Spain. The EU’s monetary affairs commissioner, Olli Rehn, said the agreement “proves that we shall defend the euro whatever it takes.” “We are facing such exceptional circumstances today and the mechanism and the mechanism will stay in place as long as needed to safeguard financial stability,” the ministers said in a statement. Spain and Portugal, which have begun to see the same signs of trouble that Greece had three months, have committed to “take significant additional consolidation measures in 2010 and 2011,” the statement said, and the two countries will present them to the EU’s finance ministers at their meeting on May 18. The EU’s slow response to the crisis and its failure to keep Greece from reaching the brink of bankruptcy triggered slides in the euro and global stocks last week, and intensified fears the crisis would spread. Ministers had hoped to have something approved by the time stock markets opened Monday in Asia, but they missed their deadline by a couple of hours. “We need to make progress today because in the night, when the markets are opening, we cannot afford disappointments,” Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg said as he headed into the meeting Sunday afternoon. “We now see herd behaviors in the markets that are really pack behaviors, wolf pack behaviors,” he said. If unchecked, “they will tear the weaker countries apart. So it is very important that we now make progress.” Some eurozone nations blamed the fragile governments and a lack of European cooperation for the crisis. “I’m against putting all the blame on speculation,” said Austrian Finance Minister Josef Proell. “Speculation is only successful against countries that have mismanaged their finances for years.” Compounding the Greek financial crisis, attention has centered on fragile finances of countries like Spain and Portugal, which in turn could drag the whole of the euro zone down. Fear of default led to investors demanding high interest rates that Greece could not pay, forcing it to seek a bailout; the risk is that market skepticism will make Portugal and Spain pay more and more to borrow, worsening their plight. Early on Saturday, the eurozone leaders gave final approval for an euro80 billion ($100 billion) rescue package of loans to Greece for the next three years to keep it from imploding. The International Monetary Fund also approved its part of the rescue package – euro30 billion ($40 billion) worth of loans – in Washington on Sunday. Financial markets have continued to sell off the euro and Greek bonds even as EU leaders have insisted for days that the Greek financial implosion is a unique combination of bad management, free spending and statistical cheating that doesn’t apply to other euro-zone nations. Many economists think Greece will eventually default anyway, which could deal a sharp blow to the euro and lead to sharply higher borrowing costs for other indebted countries in Europe. Default, or market contagion to other countries could lead to panic, intimidating consumers from spending and making banks fearful to lend money to businesses and consumers. ____ AP Business Writer Emma Vandore in Brussels, and Associated Press writers Elaine Ganley in Paris and Daniel Wagner in Washington contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

EU Readies Emergency Fund Said to Be $645 Billion to Fight Off `Wolfpack’

May 9, 2010

By James G. Neuger and Meera Louis May 9 (Bloomberg) — European Union finance ministers pledged to stop a sovereign-debt crisis from shattering confidence in the euro as they held an emergency summit to hammer out a lending mechanism that may be worth around $645 billion. Jolted into action by last week’s slide in the currency to a 14-month low and soaring bond yields in Portugal and Spain, leaders of the 16 euro nations agreed on the backstop yesterday and told ministers to get it ready before Asian markets open. The European facility may be worth around 500 billion euros, said an official familiar with the talks. “We are going to defend the euro,” Spanish Economy Minister Elena Salgado told reporters as she arrived to chair today’s Brussels meeting. “We think we have a duty for more stability for our currency. We will do whatever is necessary.” Europe’s failure to contain Greece’s fiscal crisis triggered a 4.3 percent drop in the euro last week, the biggest weekly decline since the aftermath of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s collapse. It prompted the U.S. and Asia to urge broader steps to prevent a debt crisis from pitching the world back into a recession. President Barack Obama spoke by phone with German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the second time in three days, adding to the international pressure Europe has faced since a hurriedly arranged conference call of Group of Seven finance chiefs on May 7. Obama today emphasized “the importance of the members of the European Union taking resolute steps to build confidence in the markets,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters in Hampton, Virginia. ‘Wolfpack Behavior’ “In the night, when the markets are opening, we cannot afford a disappointment,” said Finance Minister Anders Borg of Sweden, one of 11 EU nations not in the euro. “We now see herd behavior in the markets that are really pack behavior, wolfpack behavior.” European officials declined to disclose the size of the stabilization fund, to be made up of money borrowed by the EU’s central authorities with guarantees by national governments. The meeting started just after 3 p.m. Expectations of decisive action buoyed the euro as trading began in Asia. It jumped more than 1 percent to $1.2897 as of 6:11 a.m. in Sydney, according to pricing from Westpac Banking Corp. Several Alternatives Germany, the bloc’s largest economy, is being represented by Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere after wheelchair-bound Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble , 67, was rushed to a Brussels hospital due to an adverse reaction to new medication. Part of a new lending mechanism could be based on the balance-of-payments aid model that the EU granted to Hungary, Romania and Latvia when their budgets buckled in the financial crisis, said Jacques Cailloux , chief European economist at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in London. The initial funding available could be 70 billion euros, he said. “There is some discussion about what the solution will be,” Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager said. “There are several alternatives at the moment.” Separately, European Central Bank council members were slated to hold a teleconference today. “Europe is getting its act together,” said Chris Rupkey , chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. “Time will tell if this statement is enough to satisfy the European bond market vigilantes.” Stiffest Test Government officials said they won’t push the independent ECB to, for example, buy government bonds. President Jean-Claude Trichet accelerated the market selloff on May 6 by rejecting that measure. Trichet is in Basel, Switzerland, today for a scheduled meeting of central bankers from the Group of 10 nations. Vice President Lucas Papademos is attending the Brussels talks. With the euro facing the stiffest test since its debut in 1999, the weekend turned into a crisis-management exercise to restore faith in the currency and prevent a European debt crisis from cascading around the world. The purpose is to “decide on a mechanism that enables us to assure the stability of the euro, stability in the zone and, beyond that, stability in financial markets,” French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said. The euro slid to $1.2715 from $1.3293 in the past week, and is down 15 percent since late November. European stocks sank the most in 18 months, with the Stoxx Europe 600 Index tumbling 8.8 percent to 237.18. Stability The extra yield that investors demand to hold Greek, Portuguese and Spanish debt instead of benchmark German bonds rose to euro-era highs. The premium on 10-year government bonds jumped as high as 973 basis points for Greece, 354 basis points for Portugal and 173 basis points for Spain. Britain, the EU’s third-largest economy, won’t contribute to a fund to shore up euro countries, though it backs efforts to restore stability, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said. “When it comes to supporting the euro, that is for the eurogroup countries,” Darling told Sky News. “We need to show again today that by acting together we can stabilize the situation.” At yesterday’s leaders’ summit in Brussels, Germany stepped up calls for a closer monitoring of government finances and more rigorous enforcement of the deficit-limitation rules. The vow to push budget shortfalls below the euro’s 3 percent limit echoes promises that have been regularly broken ever since governments in 1999 set a three-year deadline for achieving balanced budgets. The euro region’s overall deficit is forecast at 6.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2010 and 6.1 percent in 2011. Consideration Plans for a European credit-rating authority are already under consideration at the European Commission, the bloc’s Brussels-based executive agency. It also is investigating whether ratings companies such as Standard & Poor’s wield too much power over investors’ perceptions of governments. Asked whether steps to stem speculation against government bonds would include restrictions on short sales or credit default swaps, European Commission President Jose Barroso said “some of the points you have mentioned will be contemplated.” The political leadership of the $12 trillion economy yesterday also signed off on a 110 billion-euro ($140 billion) aid package for Greece negotiated by finance ministers last week. So far nine governments have cleared the way for funds to be sent to Athens. To contact the reporters on this story: James G. Neuger in Brussels at jneuger@bloomberg.net ; Meera Louis in Brussels at mlouis1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

JPMorgan’s Lee Helps United Air Seal Continental Merger Deal on Second Try

May 7, 2010

By Zachary R. Mider May 7 (Bloomberg) — The $3.1 billion merger of UAL Corp.’s United Airlines and Continental Airlines Inc. was only the year’s 38th-largest deal. That didn’t keep some of Wall Street’s top rainmakers from getting involved. James B. Lee Jr ., a vice chairman and veteran merger adviser at JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Michael Carr , a senior member of the firm’s merger leadership group, advised UAL Chief Executive Officer Glenn Tilton . Morgan Stanley’s Robert Kindler , head of global mergers and acquisitions, worked with Continental, alongside Lazard Ltd.’s Harry Pinson , a banker in the carrier’s home city of Houston. The merger, which creates the world’s biggest airline with almost 86,000 employees, was the second effort in two years to bring United and Continental to the altar. In April 2008, the airlines were hours away from approving a deal when Continental pulled out of talks and resolved to remain independent. “The deal executed last Sunday night was virtually the same transaction we negotiated two years ago,” Lee said in an interview with Charlie Rose published in Bloomberg Businessweek’s May 10 issue. “The seeds were planted quite some time ago.” United and Continental announced the merger on May 3 after signing the deal the night before at the offices of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, United’s legal counsel. GE, PepsiCo JPMorgan’s team included Thomas Miles , Christopher Ventresca , co-head of North American mergers and acquisitions, and David Fox, head of Midwest investment banking. Goldman’s Patrick McClymont also advised Chicago-based United. Morgan Stanley’s Nelson Walsh and Josh Connor were part of the group advising Continental. The deal is the latest in a series of high-profile mandates for Lee and Kindler. Lee, 57, a longtime adviser to UAL’s Tilton, helped General Electric Co. sell a majority stake in NBC Universal to Comcast Corp. last year and led negotiations with the U.S. Treasury on behalf of Chrysler LLC bank-debt holders. Kindler, 56, advised PepsiCo Inc. ’s biggest bottler on its sale to the soda and snack maker last year, and helped CF Industries Holdings Inc. win a year-long battle to buy Terra Industries Inc. Carr has been helping Airgas Inc. defend against a hostile takeover bid from Air Products & Chemicals Inc. For legal advice, United is using Cravath’s Scott Barshay and George Zobitz. Continental’s CEO Jeff Smisek is using the law firm where he once worked, Vinson & Elkins, where Kevin Lewis is working on the deal. Jones Day’s Robert Profusek and Mark Metts and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP are also advising. There have been 32 airline deals so far this year, with a total value of $7.7 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The largest was the $3.3 billion takeover of Japan Airlines Corp. by Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corp. of Japan, the state-affiliated fund. Goldman Sachs is the biggest merger adviser this year, Bloomberg data show. JPMorgan is third, and Morgan Stanley and Lazard are fifth and sixth respectively. To contact the reporter on this story: Zachary R. Mider in New York at zmider1@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →