professor

Greece Asks EU, IMF to Activate Bailout Deal That May Test Euro Stability

April 23, 2010

By Jonathan Stearns and Maria Petrakis April 23 (Bloomberg) — Greece called for activation of a financial lifeline of as much as 45 billion euros ($60 billion) this year in an unprecedented test of the euro’s stability and European political cohesion. The appeal for help from the European Union and International Monetary Fund follows a surge in borrowing costs to what Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou called unsustainable levels that undermine efforts to cut a budget deficit of more than four times the EU limit. Greek bonds and stocks rallied after the announcement. “There was no response from the markets, either because they didn’t believe in the political will of the EU or because they decided to go on with speculation,” Papandreou said today. “The situation threatens to demolish not only the sacrifices of the people but also the regular course of the economy. All the efforts by the Greek people are in danger of being in vain.” With national debt of almost 300 billion euros and investors demanding almost triple what they charge Germany for its 10-year bonds, Greece faces a fiscal mess that threatened to spread to Spain and Portugal, forcing the EU to set up a standby aid facility. At stake is the future of the euro 11 years after its creators gave the European Central Bank responsibility for interest rates while leaving budget policy in national capitals. Rating Cut The request came one day after the yield on the country’s benchmark two-year note topped 11 percent, approaching that of Pakistan, and Moody’s Investors Service lowered Greece’s creditworthiness by one notch to A3, saying it was considering further cuts. After Papandreou’s announcement, the 2-year yield declined 82 basis points to 9.41 percent. The euro, which has slumped 7 percent this year as Greece undermined confidence in the single currency, rose to $1,3311 today from a one-year low yesterday of $1.3261. Greece’s ASE stock index gained 1.7 percent to 1892.32. The benchmark shed almost a third of its value in the past six months as banks, the biggest holders of Greek bonds, slumped and concerns the crisis will lead to a prolonged recession hurt the market. Activating the aid and turning over economic policy to EU and IMF oversight was “a new Odyssey for Greece,” Papandreou said. “But we know the road to Ithaca and have charted the waters,” referring to the return of mythological hero Ulysses to his island home. One Roof Economists, including Harvard University Professor Martin Feldstein, have said the single currency would falter because divergent economies couldn’t fit under one monetary roof. The Greek request needs approval from all 15 other euro- area countries including Germany, where surveys have shown public opposition to aiding Greece. BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest money manager, has expressed concerns about a “backlash” from citizens in EU nations prepared to offer a lifeline. “We want to see the EU countries really get behind it and see that they’ve gelled around the idea of providing this support at the government level, at the senior policy maker level,” Curtis Arledge, chief investment officer of fixed income at BlackRock, said on April 13. “If you see the backlash, they need to get their people on board.” Discount Loans The aid facility for Greece offers as much as 30 billion euros in three-year loans from euro-area nations this year at a below-market interest rate of about 5 percent. Another 15 billion euros are available from the IMF at even lower rates, EU officials have said. Greek officials started talks on April 21 in Athens with EU and IMF officials to set conditions on the funds before the loans are disbursed. Those talks may last for at least two weeks. With Greece facing 8.5 billion euros of bonds maturing May 19 and little chance of tapping the financial markets, Papandreou’s request today could help speed distribution of the rescue funds. “We are prepared to move expeditiously on this request,” IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said today in a statement. Under EU rules, governments must keep their budget deficits below 3 percent of gross domestic product. While the EU can penalize countries for breaching the limit, no nation has been sanctioned since the euro was introduced in 1999. Of the 16 euro region members, only Luxembourg and Finland had deficits within the limit last year. Deficit Revisions The government’s deficit-cutting goal became questionable yesterday after Eurostat, the EU’s statistics agency, revised up the 2009 shortfall to 13.6 percent of gross domestic product, and said it was considering a further revision to as much as 14.1 percent. The government in Athens had pledged to reduce the budget deficit by at least 4 percentage points of gross domestic product this year to 8.7 percent. When Greece first made that pledge, its starting point was a 2009 deficit of 12.7 percent. forced it now. “The aid package will buy Greece time this year,” said Colin Ellis, European economist at Daiwa Capital in London. “That’s all that it has done. Greece still faces a herculean task to show that it can get its public finances in order and reduce its deficit.” Strikes, Protests Unions have already put the government on notice that there will be more strikes if the Papandreou seeks to impose more austerity measures beyond the tax increases and wage cuts already implemented to reach the 2010 deficit goals. Civil servants held their fourth one-day strike of the year this week and other unions have regularly walked off the job since the original measures were announced, threatening to deepen the recession. Greece’s economy may contract 4 percent this year, twice as much as in 2009 and double the government’s forecast, according to Deutsche Bank AG. After a wave of domestic protests against austerity measures, the government needs to raise almost 10 billion euros by the end of May to cover maturing bonds and another 20 billion euros by the end of the year to pay debt coupons and finance the deficit. Greece failed to qualify for the euro area initially, joining two years later and only after understating its budget gap. With the euro, ECB interest rates that never exceeded 4.75 percent and EU funds to help build roads and airports, the country had economic growth of about 4 percent on an annual average basis — one of the fastest in Europe — until 2008 when Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s collapse sparked a global financial crisis. German Resistance German politicians have expressed reluctance to aid Greece, citing the country’s manipulation of statistics to qualify for euro entry and an EU treaty clause that prohibits bailouts. Allies of Chancellor Angela Merkel, a Christian Democrat, criticized her for signing up to an April 11 European deal on the terms of any aid for Greece, saying she dropped an initial demand that subsidies be ruled out. “Germany buckled under the pressure — we shouldn’t kid ourselves that such loans are anything but subsidies,” Frank Schaeffler, deputy finance spokesman for Merkel’s Free Democrat junior coalition partners, said at the time. The Greek request for help also risks provoking a European fight with the IMF over control of the process, including the conditions. The rescue package covers three years and leaves open the sums of possible funding in 2011 and 2012. Compromise The aid facility marked a compromise between French demands for the euro area to play the lead role and German insistence on involving the Washington-based IMF. On March 30, in a sign of the potential for conflict over supervision, IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said his organization “will define the conditionality” of any rescue package for Greece. Papandreou had called the EU-IMF aid facility a “loaded gun” that would lower borrowing costs in the market and make an actual request for support unnecessary. Investors weren’t intimidated and the rout in Greek bonds intensified after the aid package was adopted on April 11. Greek 10-year bond yields have soared more than 125 basis points since then and topped 10 percent yesterday, the highest since 1998. The yield premium that investors demand to hold Greek 10- year bonds instead of benchmark German debt widened to more than 500 basis points, the most since before the euro’s 1999 debut. To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Stearns in Athens at jstearns2@bloomberg.net Maria Petrakis in Athens at mpetrakis@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Says SEC’s Fraud Case Hinges on Actions of Single Employee

April 20, 2010

By Christine Harper and David Scheer April 21 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said the U.S. fraud case against the firm hinges on the actions of the employee it placed on paid leave this week. Fabrice Tourre , the 31-year-old Goldman Sachs executive director who was accused of misleading investors about a mortgage-linked investment in 2007, will also be de-registered from the Financial Services Authority , a spokeswoman at the firm in London said yesterday. “It’s all going to be a factual dispute about what he remembers and what the other folks remember on the other side,” Greg Palm , Goldman Sachs’s co-general counsel, said in a call with reporters yesterday, without naming Tourre. “If we had evidence that someone here was trying to mislead someone, that’s not something we’d condone at all and we’d be the first one to take action.” By characterizing the case as a dispute involving a single employee, Goldman Sachs may be taking its first steps to publically distance itself from Tourre in the case, some lawyers said. That could reduce bad publicity and ultimately make it easier for the company to settle the case. Goldman Sachs may also want to separate itself from Tourre if it’s concerned he will cooperate with the SEC or implicate more senior employees, said Onnig Dombalagian , a professor at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans and former attorney fellow at the SEC. ‘Vicarious Liability’ “If Tourre says, ‘Goldman’s board knew what we were doing,’ you can imagine Goldman will want to portray him as disgruntled,” or willing to lie to avoid punishment, the professor said. That may not help the firm itself, he added. “Under theories of vicarious liability, if you can find Tourre liable, it’s going to be hard for Goldman to escape.” Pamela Chepiga , a lawyer for Tourre at Allen & Overy LLP in New York, didn’t return a call seeking comment. The New York- based bank has previously denied wrongdoing and said it will fight the SEC’s case because it is “completely unfounded in law and fact.” The SEC sued Goldman Sachs and Tourre for misleading two investors in a collateralized debt obligation about the role played by hedge fund Paulson & Co. ACA Management LLC, which served as the CDO’s selection agent, didn’t realize that Paulson planned to bet against the deal even though the fund was advising ACA on the portfolio, the SEC alleged. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG , an investor in the CDO, didn’t know about Paulson’s role at all, the SEC said. ‘He Said-She said’ The SEC complaint “clearly revolves a little bit around ‘he said-she said,’ ” Palm said, and hinges on whether Tourre misled ACA into believing that Paulson was investing in the deal instead of betting against it. Byron Georgiou , a member of a U.S. panel that’s investigating the financial crisis, said he doubts Goldman Sachs could make a convincing case that Tourre acted alone and without the full support of his superiors. “It’s hard to imagine that there wasn’t some supervision of a 27-year-old, at that time, trader structuring a billion- dollar transaction on which Goldman made a $15 million fee,” Georgiou, who serves on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission , said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Palm said Tourre “believes that he indicated” to ACA that Paulson was interested in taking a “short” position on the deal, meaning he was betting against it, Palm said. “Our employee certainly knows that he did not represent to ACA or indicate in any way that Paulson was going to be an equity investor in this transaction.” Goldman Sachs, which vowed on April 16 that it would “vigorously contest” the SEC’s suit, isn’t ruling out a potential settlement, Palm said. “You go to trial, which is what we’re doing, and you always have the option of, if there is an agreeable settlement to both sides, of settling at any point in time,” he said. To contact the reporter on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

ECB’s Revamped Rules May Give Greece More Pain Than Gain as Crisis Worsens

April 8, 2010

By Frances Robinson April 8 (Bloomberg) — The European Central Bank’s decision to change its lending rules may end up hurting debt-laden Greece more than helping it. While President Jean-Claude Trichet last month assisted Greece by extending the ECB’s emergency collateral rules into next year, the move may come at a cost. The new framework will make it more expensive for banks to exchange Greek bonds for central bank funds because of their lower credit rating. Since the ECB loosened its rules during the financial crisis, two of the three main ratings firms have cut Greece’s rating below the minimum required under the old regime. “There’s now hardly any chance of Greek debt becoming ineligible at the ECB,” said Nick Kounis , chief European economist at Fortis Bank Nederland NV in Amsterdam. “But the new collateral system will certainly be less favorable to countries with lower ratings, especially Greece.” The ECB’s Governing Council meets today as Greece’s fiscal crisis shows no sign of abating. The extra yield investors demand to hold Greek 10-year bonds instead of Germany’s today soared to the highest since the euro was introduced in 1999. That’s complicating the ECB’s efforts to withdraw emergency stimulus measures used to nurse the euro-region economy through its worst recession since World War II. All 62 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News expect the ECB to keep its benchmark interest rate at a record low of 1 percent. It announces the decision at 1:45 p.m. in Frankfurt and Trichet briefs reporters 45 minutes later. Graded Haircuts Trichet has promised to reveal details of the bank’s new collateral framework, which includes a proposed “graded haircut schedule.” A haircut is the risk premium central banks apply to securities they accept as collateral against loans. A 10 percent haircut on an asset means the central bank would lend commercial banks 90 percent of its value. The ECB is proposing to apply bigger haircuts to assets with lower credit ratings. Had the ECB stuck to its plan to revert to pre-crisis rules at the end of the year, Greek bonds would have become ineligible in refinancing operations in the event of Moody’s Investors Service cutting its rating two notches to a level comparable with other agencies. Greece is rated A2 at Moody’s, while Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings both have a BBB+ rating on the country’s debt. ‘Poor Collateral’ “Soon, due to its poor credit rating, Greek debt will be treated like poor collateral, so banks will no longer be able to borrow as much with Greek debt as collateral,” Simon Johnson , Professor of Finance at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former International Monetary Fund chief economist, wrote in the Huffington Post yesterday. “When these changes at the ECB come into effect in 2011, the days of Greece being able to borrow easily at low interest rates in the euro zone will close once and for all.” Greece is struggling to cut its budget deficit from 12.7 percent of gross domestic product, prompting investors to dump Greek assets amid speculation the country could default on its debts. Greek bonds dropped today, sending the 10-year spread to benchmark German bunds to 442 basis points. It now costs more to insure against a Greek default than a default by Iceland, which resorted to a $4.6 billion International Monetary Fund-led rescue in October 2008 following the collapse of its three biggest banks. Contagion Concerns about the Greece’s creditworthiness have affected the bonds of Spain and Portugal, whose budget deficits have also ballooned. Credit default swaps for Ireland, Spain, Italy and Portugal all rose today, according to CMA datavision. Some economists say the ECB will be wary of tightening lending rules for countries that are struggling to convince investors they can cut their budget shortfalls. “You don’t want to kill these guys while they’re struggling to put the house back in order,” said Silvio Peruzzo , an economist at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in London. “Pre-announcing the collateral rule changes clearly suggests they are working toward helping countries which are struggling with fiscal consolidation.” Laurent Bilke , a former ECB economist now with Nomura International Plc in London, said the ECB could “sterilize” the haircut changes by lowering the premiums determined by other criteria, such as maturity. “To avoid penalizing Greek government bonds excessively, we see only small scope for a hawkish outcome in which haircuts are broadly increased from current levels,” he said. ‘Very Painful’ Greece needs to raise 11.6 billion euros in funding by the end of May to meet debt repayments coming due in the next two months, and will need to raise another 20 billion euros ($27 billion) by the end of the year to finance its deficit. Tighter ECB collateral rules would make that borrowing more expensive, said Erik Nielsen , chief European economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in London. “As Greece will continue to need its banks for roll-overs and deficit financing, the cost of providing that financing is almost certain to go up,” he wrote in a note to clients. “Probably unintentionally,” the ECB’s new rules “may be very painful for Greece and its banks.” To contact the reporter on this story: Frances Robinson in Frankfurt at frobinson6@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Edward Harrison: Throwing in the towel on Team Obama

April 6, 2010

Earlier today, I had a brief e-mail exchange in which I said that I had basically thrown in the towel on US (and global) policy makers. Early on in this crisis, I had advocated a number of policy paths which I think would have been infinitely superior to the ones actually chosen by the Bush and Obama Administrations, especially in regards to limiting the socialization of losses. I am talking about massive fiscal stimulus , big bank pre-privatization , a move away from the asset-based economy and the accumulation of debt , and a reallocation of resources . Quite frankly, none of these suggestions have been taken on. As I discussed in March when making a few comments on this blogger’s harsher tone about the credit crisis , the prevailing view in policy circles seems to be that we are in full recovery mode now, the remedies we put in place having been highly effective. Therefore, we can put in a few minor tweaks to the financial system, use our propaganda machine to tout them as the largest regulatory changes since the Great Depression, and then return to business as usual. I find this narrative very unsettling and the complacent view it represents as likely to lead to another systemic crisis in short order. But the mindset is fixed. This is the reality of our policy making elite. And it seems that I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion.

Read the full article →

Hedge-Fund Returns Are Being Dragged Down by `Hidden Bias’: Chart of Day

March 30, 2010

By David Wilson March 30 (Bloomberg) — Hedge-fund returns are worse than industry figures would suggest because many funds on the brink of failure stop reporting on their performance, according to a new academic study. These omissions create a “hidden survivorship bias” because funds in their last 12 months of existence are left out of the data, the study found. The gap in returns between these failing funds and others averaged 0.54 percent a month, or about 6 percent annually, for 1994 through the first quarter of 2009. The CHART OF THE DAY shows the average monthly percentage differential for each full year studied as a white bar. There is also a blue line, depicting a similar return gap between failed funds as of March 2009 and survivors. The average for the latter was just 0.26 percent a month. Both gauges were relatively low in 2008 as a credit crisis sent stocks and bonds plunging and weighed on returns across the industry, according to Seton Hall University Professor Xiaoqing Eleanor Xu and her co-authors on the study, TIAA-CREF’s Jiong Liu and Seton Hall’s Anthony L. Loviscek . They found that 31 percent of all funds failed that year, more than double the annual average of 12 percent for the study period. There were 1,089 that collapsed, according to a database compiled by the University of Massachusetts Amherst and used in the research. Failures among funds of hedge funds and commodity trading advisers brought the total to 1,983. Hedge funds should “be subjected to standard reporting procedures, including random audits,” to increase the accuracy of data on their performance, the authors concluded. Their study was posted March 17 on the Social Science Research Network and cited yesterday on Seeking Alpha, a financial blog. (To save a copy of the chart, click here.) To contact the reporter on this story: David Wilson in New York at dwilson@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

China Needs to Be ‘Very Certain’ of Recovery for Stimulus Exit, Zhou Says

March 24, 2010

By Bloomberg News March 24 (Bloomberg) — China’s government needs evidence of a “very certain” recovery before it can roll back stimulus measures adopted during the crisis, central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said. “If you can be sure about the recovery, and then some of the extraordinary stimulus policies can gradually fade out,” Zhou said in an interview in San Jose, Costa Rica. “On the other hand, you should know that it’s not a W-shaped recovery,” with a renewed slowdown following the current rebound, he said. China has yet to raise interest rates or allow its exchange rate to appreciate, keeping in place some of the extraordinary measures even as inflation and asset prices accelerate. Zhou’s concern about risks of a w-shaped recovery echo a warning yesterday by Harvard University Professor Martin Feldstein that there is a “significant risk” of a U.S. return to recession. Policy makers need to see “quite definite evidence or statistical data to show it’s a good recovery,” said Zhou, who spoke late on March 23 after arriving in Costa Rica from Cancun, Mexico, where he attended an annual meeting of the Inter- American Development Bank. “Under normal circumstances, China’s current growth and strong economic indicators may have triggered more aggressive tightening, but the special circumstance means the tightening may not come as fast,” said Peng Wensheng , head of China research with Barclays Capital in Hong Kong. “In general Chinese officials will be very cautious and they’d rather withdraw stimulus slower rather than quicker.” Crisis Warnings The country is at risk of a crash because of a credit boom that caused a build-up of bad assets, according to some observers. China is “the greatest bubble in history,” James Rickards , former general counsel of hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP, said this month. Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff , hedge fund manager Jim Chanos and Gloom, Boom & Doom publisher Marc Faber have also warned of a crisis. Withdrawal of fiscal and monetary stimulus needs “sequencing,” the People’s Bank of China governor also said. “For many nations, the consensus is fiscal policies should be phased out lastly.” Premier Wen Jiabao ’s government implemented a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) two-year fiscal stimulus and unleashed a record 9.59 trillion yuan credit boom last year to help shield the economy from the impact of the world’s worst postwar recession. Officials also stopped allowing the yuan to appreciate starting in July 2008, keeping it pegged around 6.83 per dollar. Growth Rate The world’s third-largest economy expanded 10.7 percent in the fourth quarter, the fastest pace since 2007, adding to concern that it could now be overheating. Still, Premier Wen on March 14 highlighted concern about the global outlook, with ballooning sovereign debt and high unemployment around risking sending the world economy into a second downturn. The central bank has twice raised the ratio for reserves banks are required to hold against losses, and Wen has warned of “latent risk” in the financial system stemming from a credit boom last year. Some overseas observers are more sanguine about China’s rebound, with U.S. lawmakers asking the Obama administration to step up pressure on the nation to loosen the currency peg. Eisuke Sakakibara , Japan’s former top currency official at the Finance Ministry, said today that the yuan is undervalued now and will rise in the long term given China’s expansion. Sakakibara’s Take China can maintain a growth rate of 8 percent to 9 percent in coming years, Sakakibara said at a Credit Suisse Asian Investment Conference in Hong Kong today. An asset bubble isn’t a major risk for the country, he also said. The world is counting on China to be an engine of growth as unemployment restrains the recovery in the U.S. and Europe grapples with the Greek debt crisis. China will contribute one- third of global growth this year, Angel Gurria , secretary- general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a speech at a Beijing forum two days ago. China will coordinate with other countries, especially the Group of 20 nations, on a stimulus exit, Zhou said today, adding that G-20 leaders will assess the status of the economic recovery at a summit in Canada in June. — Jens Erik Gould and Li Yanping . Editors: Chris Anstey , Russell Ward To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Jens Gould in San Jose, Costa Rica at +52-55-52429256 or jgould9@bloomberg.net Li Yanping in Beijing at +86-10-6649-7568 or yli16@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

China Needs to See `Very Certain’ Recovery Before Stimulus Exit, Zhou Says

March 24, 2010

By Bloomberg News March 24 (Bloomberg) — China’s government needs evidence of a “very certain” recovery before it can roll back stimulus measures adopted during the crisis, central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said. “If you can be sure about the recovery, and then some of the extraordinary stimulus policies can gradually fade out,” Zhou said in an interview in San Jose, Costa Rica. “On the other hand, you should know that it’s not a W-shaped recovery,” with a renewed slowdown following the current rebound, he said. China has yet to raise interest rates or allow its exchange rate to appreciate, keeping in place some of the extraordinary measures even as inflation and asset prices accelerate. Zhou’s concern about risks of a w-shaped recovery echo a warning yesterday by Harvard University Professor Martin Feldstein that there is a “significant risk” of a U.S. return to recession. Policy makers need to see “quite definite evidence or statistical data to show it’s a good recovery,” said Zhou, who spoke late on March 23 after arriving in Costa Rica from Cancun, Mexico, where he attended an annual meeting of the Inter- American Development Bank. “Under normal circumstances, China’s current growth and strong economic indicators may have triggered more aggressive tightening, but the special circumstance means the tightening may not come as fast,” said Peng Wensheng , head of China research with Barclays Capital in Hong Kong. “In general Chinese officials will be very cautious and they’d rather withdraw stimulus slower rather than quicker.” Crisis Warnings The country is at risk of a crash because of a credit boom that caused a build-up of bad assets, according to some observers. China is “the greatest bubble in history,” James Rickards , former general counsel of hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP, said this month. Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff , hedge fund manager Jim Chanos and Gloom, Boom & Doom publisher Marc Faber have also warned of a crisis. Withdrawal of fiscal and monetary stimulus needs “sequencing,” the People’s Bank of China governor also said. “For many nations, the consensus is fiscal policies should be phased out lastly.” Premier Wen Jiabao ’s government implemented a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) two-year fiscal stimulus and unleashed a record 9.59 trillion yuan credit boom last year to help shield the economy from the impact of the world’s worst postwar recession. Officials also stopped allowing the yuan to appreciate starting in July 2008, keeping it pegged around 6.83 per dollar. Growth Rate The world’s third-largest economy expanded 10.7 percent in the fourth quarter, the fastest pace since 2007, adding to concern that it could now be overheating. Still, Premier Wen on March 14 highlighted concern about the global outlook, with ballooning sovereign debt and high unemployment around risking sending the world economy into a second downturn. The central bank has twice raised the ratio for reserves banks are required to hold against losses, and Wen has warned of “latent risk” in the financial system stemming from a credit boom last year. Some overseas observers are more sanguine about China’s rebound, with U.S. lawmakers asking the Obama administration to step up pressure on the nation to loosen the currency peg. Eisuke Sakakibara , Japan’s former top currency official at the Finance Ministry, said today that the yuan is undervalued now and will rise in the long term given China’s expansion. Sakakibara’s Take China can maintain a growth rate of 8 percent to 9 percent in coming years, Sakakibara said at a Credit Suisse Asian Investment Conference in Hong Kong today. An asset bubble isn’t a major risk for the country, he also said. The world is counting on China to be an engine of growth as unemployment restrains the recovery in the U.S. and Europe grapples with the Greek debt crisis. China will contribute one- third of global growth this year, Angel Gurria , secretary- general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a speech at a Beijing forum two days ago. China will coordinate with other countries, especially the Group of 20 nations, on a stimulus exit, Zhou said today, adding that G-20 leaders will assess the status of the economic recovery at a summit in Canada in June. — Jens Erik Gould and Li Yanping . Editors: Chris Anstey , Russell Ward To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Jens Gould in San Jose, Costa Rica at +52-55-52429256 or jgould9@bloomberg.net Li Yanping in Beijing at +86-10-6649-7568 or yli16@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Feldstein Sees Greece Euro-Exit Pressure as Government Deficit Plan Fails

March 16, 2010

By Simon Kennedy March 17 (Bloomberg) — Harvard University Professor Martin Feldstein , who warned almost two decades ago that the euro would prove an “economic liability,” said Greece’s austerity plan will fail and the country may quit the single currency to fix its fiscal crisis. Under pressure from investors and fellow policy makers, Prime Minister George Papandreou ’s government is striving to knock four percentage points off its budget gap this year from 12.7 percent of gross domestic product and has vowed to meet the EU’s 3 percent limit in 2012 for the first time since 2006. “The idea that Greece can go from a 12 percent deficit now to a 3 percent deficit two years from now seems fantasy,” Feldstein, an adviser to U.S. presidents since Ronald Reagan , said in a March 13 interview in Geneva. “The alternatives are to default in some way or to leave, or both.” His diagnosis clashes with that of European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet , who calls Greece’s strategy “convincing” and rejects as “absurd” any speculation it might leave the euro zone. Investors nevertheless aren’t ruling out Feldstein’s analysis. Billionaire George Soros said last month that the euro “may not survive,” and credit default swaps indicate a 22 percent chance Greece will default within five years, up from 16 percent a year ago. The judgment of Feldstein, 70, a former contender to chair the Federal Reserve, marks his latest broadside against the single currency five years after he said its rules generated a “very strong bias toward large chronic fiscal deficits” and more than a year since he first suggested the 16-nation bloc may splinter. ‘Absolutely’ Won’t Break Up He “has more reason to think he’s right than five years ago, and it’s natural to talk about limitations,” said Philip Lane , an economics professor at Trinity College Dublin. “But the euro area will absolutely not break up.” Greek workers disrupted transportation services and tried to storm parliament on March 5 as lawmakers passed 4.8 billion euros ($6.6 billion) of extra deficit reductions, including lower wages for public employees. Such cutbacks will continue to run into resistance as unemployment is propelled above December’s 10.2 percent and recent declines in the country’s bond yields are tied to cheerleading by European policy makers, Feldstein said. Greece’s 10-year bond yielded 6.16 percent as of 4:57 p.m. yesterday in London, a percentage point lower than Jan. 28 . The premium investors demand to hold the bonds over their German equivalents narrowed to 297 basis points from 396 basis points. ‘Polite Way’ Greece will ultimately need to mull alternative ways to tackle its crisis, possibly by finding a “polite way” to default, Feldstein said. That might include persuading investors to swap maturing bonds for longer-term assets at lower interest rates. Another option would be leaving the euro area to devalue and then returning once the fiscal weaknesses are solved. “I don’t know that there’s a good solution to this problem,” Feldstein said. Pulling out and re-entering is impractical and gives other countries an excuse not to restrain deficits and improve their competitiveness within the euro zone, said Charles Wyplosz , a former student of Feldstein’s and director of the International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies in Geneva. While leaving the bloc and devaluing its currency would likely enable Greece to boost exports , the so-called holiday strategy would also require spending cuts, lower real wages and tax increases, Feldstein said. “Put all that together, and it doesn’t look like countries are going to eagerly line up to do it,” he said. Belt-Tightening European governments this week laid the groundwork for a financial lifeline to Greece that would provide emergency loans if needed, breaking a taboo against aid to cash-strapped nations to avert a deeper crisis for the euro. Standard & Poor’s yesterday removed Greece from “creditwatch negative,” lowering the threat of a further credit-rating cut. Greece has a BBB+ rating after S&P downgraded it from A- in December. While a bailout would be a “relatively painless solution,” Feldstein said it would generate opposition among voters and risk other nations demanding similar assistance. Feldstein’s opinions command attention because of his career at the hearts of both academia and politics. This experience catapulted him to the brink of the Fed chairmanship five years ago before President George W. Bush picked Ben S. Bernanke . Feldstein received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1977 as the U.S. economist under the age of 40 who made the most significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge, then ran the National Bureau of Economic Research , arbiter of U.S. business cycles, for most of the next 30 years until 2008. Former Students He chaired Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers , counseled Bush’s White House campaign and now sits on President Barack Obama ’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board . Among his former students are Lawrence Summers and Lawrence Lindsey , the current and former directors of the White House’s National Economic Council . “Marty’s a very important economist,” said Glenn Hubbard , dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business in New York, who was also taught by Feldstein and chaired Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. “He’s a great scholar, but what distinguishes him is that his ideas have practical impact, too.” As long ago as June 1992, Feldstein wrote in the Economist that “economic analysis” didn’t justify a single European currency. In his most-famous contribution to the debate, he wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1997 that “war within Europe itself would be abhorrent but not impossible” under the euro. ‘EMU and War’ Many economists read his comment ahead of the birth of Economic and Monetary Union as a forecast that war would break out. Feldstein denies that, saying an editor wrote the headline — “EMU and War” — and he was arguing that the euro wasn’t a guarantee against such a conflict and might fan cross-border political differences. While Feldstein says he likes Trichet “a lot and I think it’s mutual,” he notes the ECB president often points out that skeptics doubted the euro would exist or last. “You don’t find any of that in my writings,” he said. Even so, Lars Jonung, an adviser to the European Commission in Brussels and co-author of a January paper on how American economists viewed the euro through the 1990s, says Feldstein is a “consistent pessimist, and so far he’s been proved wrong.” Well-Established The currency is well-established and hasn’t sparked political turmoil, trade has increased and inflation differentials in the euro area are similar to those for U.S. states, Jonung said in his Econ Journal Watch study . Greece’s measures and the response of EU governments will eventually strengthen monetary union, he added. Feldstein counters that global growth during the currency’s first decade helped mask its flaws, such as the mismatch of spreading uniform interest and exchange rates over diverse economies that lack fiscal discipline. His criticism doesn’t stop him from predicting the euro will appreciate against the dollar as investors punish the U.S. trade imbalance. The euro has fallen about 4 percent against the U.S. currency this year and traded at $1.37 yesterday. Feldstein turned his attention to the implications of the euro for budgets in 2005, when he said a decision by the euro’s members to ease fiscal curbs left the “way open to much larger sustained deficits.” By November 2008, he was writing that diverging bond yields within the region signaled investors “regard a breakup as a real possibility.” Two months later, as the euro marked its 10th anniversary, Feldstein told the American Economic Association the currency faced an “important testing time” and countries may ultimately leave it to regain control of their economies. ‘Proved Wrong’ “American economists such as Marty have been proved wrong for a decade and will be proved wrong for the next decade,” said Wyplosz, who predicts that a Greece exit would trigger a “total collapse of the Greek economy.” Feldstein stands by his analysis that it’s not “unthinkable” some countries may choose life outside the euro area. Leaving is “certainly possible, and in part it can happen even if all the economic advice to a government is, ‘You shouldn’t do this,’” he said. “Politicians don’t always listen to their economists.” To contact the reporter on this story: Simon Kennedy in Paris at skennedy4@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

China Plans to Sell $29 Billion of Yuan Debt This Year as Part of Stimulus

March 4, 2010

By Bloomberg News March 5 (Bloomberg) — China will sell 200 billion yuan ($29 billion) of bonds for a second year to help local governments fund infrastructure projects, Premier Wen Jiabao told today’s annual meeting of the National People’s Congress . The finance ministry, which will organize the debt auctions, plans to offer three- and five-year securities and channel funds between bondholders and the local authorities issuing the notes, according to a person familiar with the proposal who asked not to be identified. The central government’s role in local debt sales has reduced the cost of building roads and railways as part of a two-year $586 billion spending package that drove expansion of 8.7 percent in the world’s fastest-growing economy last year. Policy makers are seeking to maintain financing for such projects, while curbing record new bank lending that has increased the risk of property and stock-market bubbles. “This alternative source of funding is healthy – Beijing may have realized the risk that local governments borrowed too much from banks last year,” said Mark Williams , an economist at Capital Economics in London who worked at the U.K. Treasury as an adviser on China from 2005 to 2007, in a telephone interview. A spokesman for China’s Consulate General office in New York said he wasn’t aware of the government’s plans. ‘Sensible’ Three-year bonds sold last year on behalf of local governments, 30 provinces and five municipalities, yielded between 1.6 percent and 2.36 percent when they were auctioned, compared with the one-year lending rate in China of 5.31 percent. The sales are part of the government’s economic stimulus plan, announced in November 2008. “It sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to do,” Charles Dumas , research director at Lombard Street Research Ltd. in London, said it an interview. “It undoes some of the monetary consequences of this huge spending surge by taking it out of the money supply. But of course it doesn’t in any way hold back the overheating of the total economy.” China sold 1.42 trillion yuan of treasury debt last year to partly finance a record-high fiscal deficit in addition to the 200 billion yuan in securities it sold for provincial authorities. China’s deficit in 2010 will be similar to last year, when it was less than 3 percent of gross domestic product, Jia Kang , the head of the Finance Ministry’s research institute, said as law makers gathered in the capital this week. Unbalanced Growth The NPC convenes every March, with almost 3,000 lawmakers from China’s 32 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities congregating at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Wen has on at least two occasions said China’s growth was unsustainable and unbalanced; in a Dec. 27 interview with the official Xinhua News Agency and at the 2007 National People’s Congress. China’s law prohibits local governments from incurring debt directly. Even so, the government plans a crackdown on investment companies set up by local governments to circumvent those regulations, the 21st Century Business Herald reported this week. Borrowing by local-government entities, not counted in official estimates of China’s debt ratios, may push up the country’s borrowing to 96 percent of GDP , Professor Victor Shih , a political economist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, said on March 1. His forecast compares with an International Monetary Fund estimate for China of 22 percent this year, which excludes local-government liabilities. The central bank has also ordered banks to set aside more funds as reserves and to rein in lending . In 2009, new loans rose to a record 9.59 trillion yuan. — Belinda Cao , Michael Forsythe , Kevin Hamlin , Zijing Wu and Michael Patterson . Editors: Sandy Hendry , Laura Zelenko . To contact the reporter on this story: Belinda Cao in Beijing at lcao4@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

End-of-Life Warning at $618,616: Was It Worth It?

March 4, 2010

By Amanda Bennett March 4 (Bloomberg) — It was some time after midnight on Dec. 8, 2007, when Dr. Eric Goren told me my husband might not live till morning. The kidney cancer that had metastasized almost six years earlier was growing in his lungs. He was in intensive care at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and had begun to spit blood. Terence Bryan Foley, 67 years old, my husband of 20 years, father of our two teenagers, a Chinese historian who earned his Ph.D. in his 60s, a man who played more than 15 musical instruments and spoke six languages, a San Francisco cable car conductor and sports photographer, an expert on dairy cattle and swine nutrition, film noir and Dixieland jazz, was confused. He knew his name, but not the year. He wanted a Coke. Should Terence begin to hemorrhage, the doctor asked, what should he do? This was our third end-of-life warning in seven years. We fought off the others. Perhaps we could dodge this one too. Dr. Keith Flaherty, Terence’s oncologist, and I both believed that a new medicine he had just begun to take would buy him more time. Keep him alive if you can, I said. Let’s see what the drug, Pfizer Inc. ’s Sutent, can do. Terence died six days later, on Friday, Dec. 14, 2007. What I couldn’t know then was that the thinking behind my request — along with hundreds of decisions we made over seven years — was a window on the impossible calculus at the core of the U.S. health-care debate. Expensive Last Chances Terence and I didn’t have to think about money, allocation of medical resources, the struggles of more than 46 million uninsured Americans, or the impact on corporate bottom lines. Backed by medical insurance provided by my employers, we were able to fight his cancer with a series of expensive last chances like the one I asked for that night. How expensive? The bills totaled $618,616, almost two- thirds of it for the final 24 months, much of it for treatments that no one can say for sure helped extend his life. In just the last four days of trying to keep him alive — two in intensive care, two in a cancer ward — our insurance was charged $43,711 for doctors, medicines, monitors, X-rays and scans. Two years later, the only thing I know for certain that money bought was confirmation that he was dying. Some of the drugs probably did Terence no good at all. At least one helped fewer than 10 percent of all those who took it. Pharmaceutical companies and insurers will have to sort out the economics of treatments that end up working for only a small subset. Should everyone have the right to try them? Terence and I answered yes. Each drug potentially added life. Yet that too led me to a question I can’t answer. When is it time to quit? Science, Emotion, Costs Congress didn’t touch the issue in last year’s attempt to pass a health-care bill . The mere hint of somehow limiting the ability to choose care as aggressively as Terence and I did created a whirlwind of accusations that the ill, aged and infirm would be forced before government “death panels.” As the debate heated up, I remembered the fat sheaf of insurance statements that arrived after Terence’s death. Our children, Terry, 21, and Georgia, 15, assented to my idea of gathering every record to examine what they would show about end-of-life care, its science, emotions and costs. I knew Terence would have approved. Along with my colleague Charles Babcock, I spent months poring over some 4,750 pages of documents collected from six hospitals, four insurers, Medicare, three oncologists, and a surgeon. Those papers tell the story of a system filled with people doing their best. And they raise complex questions about a health-care system that consumes 17 percent of the economy. Days to Decipher As I leafed through the stack of documents, it was easy to see why 31 percent of the money spent on health care goes to paperwork and administration, according to research published in 2003 by the New England Journal of Medicine. That number has either stayed the same or grown, said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler , a professor at Harvard Medical School and a co-author of the study cited by the journal. Some bills took days to decipher. What did “opd patins t” or “bal xfr ded” mean? How could I tell if the dose charged was the same as the dose prescribed? The documents revealed an economic system in which the sellers don’t set and the buyers don’t know the prices. The University of Pennsylvania hospital charged more than 12 times what Medicare at the time reimbursed for a chest scan. One insurer paid a hospital for 80 percent of the $3,232 price of a scan, while another covered 24 percent. Insurance companies negotiated their own rates, and neither my employers nor I paid the difference between the sticker and discounted prices. ‘It’s Completely Insane’ In this economic system, prices of goods and services bear little relation to the demand for them or their cost to make — or, as it turns out, the good or harm they do. “No other nation would allow a health system to be run the way we do it. It’s completely insane,” said Uwe E. Reinhardt , a political economy professor at Princeton University, who has advised Congress, the Veteran’s Administration and other agencies on health-care economics. Taking it all into account, the data showed we had made a bargain that hardly any economist looking solely at the numbers would say made sense. Why did we do it? I was one big reason. Not me alone, of course. The medical system has a strong bias toward action. My husband, too, was unusual, Flaherty said, in his passionate willingness to endure discomfort for a chance to see his daughter grow from a child to a young woman, and his son graduate from high school. Pricing Hope After Terence died, Flaherty drew me a picture of a bell curve, showing the range of survival times for kidney cancer sufferers. Terence was way off in the tail on the right-hand side, an indication he had indeed beaten the odds. An explosion of research had made it possible to extend lives for years — enough to keep our quest from having been total madness. Terence used to tell a story, almost certainly apocryphal, about his Uncle Bob. Climbing aboard a landing craft before the invasion of Normandy, so the story went, Bob’s sergeant told the men that by the end of the day, nine out of 10 would be dead. Said Bob, on hearing that news: “Each one of us looked around and felt so sorry for those other nine poor sonsabitches.” For me, it was about pushing the bell curve. Knowing that if there was something to be done, we couldn’t not do it. Believing beyond logic that we were going to escape the fate of those other poor sonsabitches. It is very hard to put a price on that kind of hope. The Kidney Shadow We found the cancer by accident, on Sunday, Nov. 5, 2000, in Portland, Oregon. Our son Terry had had a dozen friends over for his 12th birthday. I was making pancakes and shipping the boys home. Terence had been having stomach cramps for weeks. Suddenly he was lying on the bed, doubled over in pain. Our family doctor ordered him to the emergency room. We were immediately triaged through. Not a good sign, I thought. The kids sat on the waiting room floor spreading Barbies and X-Men around them, while Terence writhed in a curtained alcove. When he returned from a scan, the doctor said, almost as an aside: There’s a shadow on his kidney. When he’s feeling better, you’d probably better take a look at it. We were both annoyed. Why would we even think about a shadow on his kidney? His kidney wasn’t the problem. He was in such pain he could barely breathe. ‘We Got It’ The cause turned out to be a violent ulcerative colitis. The damaged colon was removed on Dec. 13. The surgery left him so weak that he spent three weeks, including Christmas morning, immobile in a chair. Colleagues packed meals. My sister wrapped presents. My boss sent her husband to put up our lights. In pity, I got Terence the cat he had long wanted, an orange kitten howling in a box under the tree. And the shadow? We were so grateful he was out of pain that we would have ignored it had someone at the hospital not called to urge us to address it. Within a month, Terence was in surgery, and Dr. Craig Turner had taken out the diseased kidney. Emerging from the five-hour operation on Jan. 18, Turner confirmed the worst: He thought the shadow was cancer. A week later, when Terence was well enough to walk into the doctor’s office, Turner was reassuring. “We got it all,” he said. Terence was visibly moved. “Thank you for saving my life,” he said. ‘We Were Lucky’ Kidney cancer is uncommon, accounting for less than 4 percent of all cancers, or about 50,000 new cases in the U.S. last year, according to the Kidney Cancer Association . Terence was typical: an older man, overweight and an ex-smoker. The disease is symptomless for a long time, so most kidney cancers are discovered accidentally, or too late. We were lucky. The first tool for fighting it is usually the one used since medieval times: the knife, or its technological equivalent. If a tumor is removed early enough, before it flings microscopic cells into the bloodstream that can implant in other organs, surgery is close to a cure. The statistics looked good. By the traditional method of staging — a 7 centimeter tumor with no sign of having spread — Terence had an 85 percent chance of surviving five years. The bills from Regence Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oregon show the operation was relatively inexpensive, too, just over $25,000, or only about 4 percent of the total charged to keep Terence alive. Insurance paid a discounted $14,084. Terence and I paid $209.87. The lab soon cast a chill on our optimism. Only 50 Cases Terence had collecting duct cancer, the rarest and most aggressive form, named for the part of the kidney where it is thought to originate, according to the pathology report. If that was correct, Terence had almost no chance of making it to the end of the year. In every study I could find, almost everyone with collecting duct cancer died in months, sometimes weeks. Unlike others, most kidney cancers don’t respond well to chemotherapy. There was no accepted treatment after surgery. What’s more, there was almost nothing known about collecting duct cancer. In all the medical literature at that time, Turner and I could find only 50 cases documented worldwide, and nothing had proved effective in halting it. “Watchful waiting” was the recommended path. Waiting for him to die was what we feared. He didn’t die. He got better. We didn’t know why. We tried not to think about it. ‘Too Much Stuff’ By the spring of 2002, we had moved to Lexington, Kentucky, where I was the editor of the newspaper and Terence was creating an Asia Center at the University of Kentucky. He began moving Chinese and Japanese history books to his office. On Saturdays we drove through the bluegrass to take seven-year-old Georgia to riding lessons. We reluctantly let 13-year-old Terry crowd-surf at his first rock concert. Then, on May 6, 2002, I was at work when Terry called, panic in his voice. “Mom, come home. Dad is very sick.” His father was in bed, his face flaming with fever, shaking with chills under a pile of blankets. He could barely speak. “The cancer is in my lungs,” he said. “I’ve got six to nine months left.” A scan had spotted the cancer’s spread. Not wanting to worry us, Terence had secretly begun taking Interleukin-2. If he recovered, he figured, we would never know how close he came; if he died, he would have spared us months of anguish. Suddenly his actions over the last several weeks made sense. He had been giving away musical instruments and pieces of art. “I have too much stuff,” he had told me, a bizarrely improbable statement coming from him. Bow Ties What he didn’t reckon on was that the drug would make him violently ill. But it was the only possible therapy at that time. Injections of the protein — at $735 a dose — were intended to stimulate the immune response to help fight off the cancer’s invasion. The overall response rate was about 10 percent. For most, it did nothing. That evening, for the one and only time, I felt pure terror. I spent the night awake in our dark living room. A few days later I visited a therapist. “I can’t survive without him,” I said. “What does he say when you feel this way?” she asked. “He says I can handle anything.” “You’ll need to say that to yourself.” On a rainy Monday last September, I visited Terence’s oncologist in Lexington. Dr. Scott Pierce remembered his patient, his grey fedora and bow ties, and his personality. The Long Odds “The first thing he said was, ‘Doc, do you have any female patients who have recently died? I need to find a widower so my wife can meet her next husband,’” Pierce recalled. Terence had learned he was going to die, and the first thing he thought was to look after me. Knowing the long odds, Pierce told me he had prescribed Interleukin-2 simply because it was all there was. Terence stopped taking it after just a few weeks, unable to stand the side effects. I shook off my fear and plunged into the Internet. If there was something out there that could save him, I was going to find it. One colleague had been snatched from dying of AIDS by a chance introduction to a doctor who prescribed an experimental antiviral cocktail. Another had beaten leukemia with a cutting- edge bone marrow transplant. We could defeat this, too. I downloaded papers, presentations to the Kidney Cancer Association, abstracts from the National Library of Medicine . I called researchers and oncologists, pathologists and fellow journalists. When the research became overwhelming, I hired a retired nurse to help. My boss’s wife, a nurse herself, began her own information quest. I became part of an online community. After I messaged one couple about a clinical trial in Texas, they offered us their spare bedroom. Terence’s Dream Earlier this year, I called “LMODRNGRRL,” a frequent cancer-forum poster from those years. A furniture dealer named Laura Lear, she told me she had left her business in Los Angeles to help her boyfriend in New York. Robert Cowan, also a furniture dealer, had collecting duct cancer. Like me, it was she who drove the search for information. “I spent all my time online,” she said. She firmly believes the drug they settled on — Novartis AG ’s Gleevec, for which insurance paid $3,000 a month — extended his life, although it was never approved for use on kidney cancer. He died in September 2003 at 43, almost two years after his diagnosis. Throughout the spring and summer of 2002, Georgia, then 8, rode her bicycle up and down the shaded streets of South Ashland Avenue. Thirteen-year-old Terry and his friends Shannon, Hughes and Tanner came in last at their first battle of the bands. Terence sounded optimistic. “It’s my dream,” he said. “Some day we’re going to gig together.” Visiting Pompeii The truth was we were both shaken at the dire prognosis. “What would you regret dying without having seen?” I asked. He answered without hesitation: “Pompeii.” So we pulled Terry from his 8th grade class, Georgia out of 2nd, and flew off to Italy to see the excavated remains of the city once buried under volcanic ash. We walked the cobbled streets, poked into frescoed houses, taverns and baths, and took an eerie comfort from the 2,000-year-old shapes of families huddled together, trying to ward off disaster. By then our research had led us to the Cleveland Clinic, where Dr. Ronald Bukowski has specialized in kidney cancer for more than 20 years. At our first meeting, in August 2002, Terence explained that he had the rare collecting duct cancer. A Clinical Trial “No you don’t,” Bukowski said. We were confused. How did he know? “You’re sitting here,” he said. “If you had collecting duct, you would be dead.” Bukowski argued that the disease was growing so slowly that we should simply watch and wait. We did, until December 2005, when a scan showed the cancer in his lungs had begun to grow. By this time, drugs designed to attack a tumor’s blood supply were appearing to slow the growth of a wide range of cancers. Bukowski recommended we enter a clinical trial, which at that time was pretty much the only way to get these targeted therapies. He referred us to Flaherty in Philadelphia, where we had moved in June 2003 when I changed jobs. The drugs Flaherty was testing — Avastin and Nexavar –had showed promise individually. The trial would find out how they worked together. Terence signed papers agreeing to more or less standard terms: The manufacturers, Genentech Inc. and Bayer AG , would pay for the drugs; we, or our insurers, would cover all other costs. Cancer in Retreat In March 2006, he took his first intravenous dose of Avastin, an hour-long process, and swallowed his first Nexavar. The side effects were hard. There were rashes, sometimes debilitating stomach pains. But he continued teaching, picking up the kids at school, studying and writing. He worked on his book of Chinese poetry. He decided to learn to play the violin and to read and write Arabic. Every two weeks he went for an Avastin drip, and every month for a chest scan. Every month we waited for the results. At first the cancer didn’t budge. Then it began to retreat. I learned that over the years of Terence’s battle with cancer, some insurers drove harder bargains than others. In December 2006, for example, UnitedHealthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group Inc. , paid $2,586 to the University of Pennsylvania hospital for a chest scan; in March 2007, after I switched employers, WellPoint Inc. ’s Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield paid $776 for the same $3,232 bill. ‘Any Soldier’ The entire medical bill for seven years, in fact, was steeply discounted. The $618,616 became $254,176 when the insurers paid their share and imposed their discounts. Of that, Terence and I were responsible for $9,468 — less than 4 percent. During the trial, Terence packed boxes for the troops in battle, loading them in our kitchen with deodorant, Wet Wipes, Mars Bars, Kool-Aid, beef jerky, batteries and magazines. A veteran of Naval intelligence and the Air Force reserves, he walked almost every day to the post office with a box addressed to “Any Soldier.” Behind the counter, the smiling lady with the long red hair extensions became his friend. Every so often a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan would drop him a thank-you note. Life went on. Then, in August 2007, from half a world away, I heard the cancer return. I was working in China when he coughed during one of our phone calls. By the time I got home he knew it was because of the growth of one of the lung’s cancerous spots. $27,360 a Dose By now, more than six years since we first saw the shadow, I was used to the scares. Avastin’s side effects — fatigue, stomach ailments, rashes — had been getting him down, and the doctor had agreed back in May to let him stop treatments. So we’ll go back on the Avastin, I thought, or cut out or laser out the growth, add new treatments and go on. At a retirement party a few days later, my heart ached for my dear friend, whose breast cancer had returned. What were our lives going to be like without her? How were we going to comfort her husband and daughter? Terence coughed through the dinner. The bills and records document our renewed fight as summer in Philadelphia turned to autumn. Terence resumed Avastin. Because he wasn’t in a clinical trial, our insurance company was billed: $27,360 a dose, for four treatments, more than the cost of the surgery to remove his kidney in 2000. An Unacknowledged Battle He coughed almost continuously. His weight plunged. He needed help on the stairs. He began to use a cane. When his friend Woody came to visit, he couldn’t muster the breath to blow his cornet. He coughed and coughed and coughed. In the last week of October, he called me at work. “I can’t pick Georgia up at school,” he said. “I can’t get out of the chair.” On Halloween, his Dracula costume stayed in the basement. We put the candy on the doorstep. On Nov. 8, we saw a specialist, Dr. Ali Musani. Unable to stand or sit unassisted, Terence lay on the floor and refused to get up. Alarmed, Musani admitted him to the hospital. He was there for four days, during a quiet, unacknowledged battle. On one side were Flaherty and I, believing this to be a temporary setback. On the other were doctors and nurses preparing their patient for the end. On Nov. 10, before discharging him, a doctor propped one of Terence’s scans on a light board and showed us a blizzard of white spots, thousands of tumors covering his lungs. Avastin wasn’t stopping it. Terence Was Game Flaherty and I weren’t going to give up. Sutent, another targeted therapy, had been approved the year before. It worked as Avastin did, by stopping cancer’s ability to build extra blood vessels to feed its growth, but in a different way. One $200 pill a day. A shot at more life. Sutent might have even more serious side effects — rashes, fatigue, stomach distress, strokes — but Terence was game. He began taking it on Nov. 15. At home, he drew a line down the middle of a piece of paper. On one side he wrote things to throw away. On the other, things to keep. “Stop that!” I snapped. “You aren’t going to die.” I prepared for what I expected would be a new phase of our life. I found protein drinks online and protein bars in a bodybuilding shop. I got forms for a handicapped license plate, and looked into outfitting our row house with a stair lift. 210 Calories He was no longer able to get in and out of bed alone, so I hired a health aide. Whatever he craved, I bought. I wrote down everything he ate. Cold grapefruit slices. Chicken noodle soup. Clam chowder. I counted the calories he consumed one day: 210. On Friday, Dec. 7, just as the aide was packing to leave, Terence looked up, startled, as the corners of his mouth foamed bright red with blood. It was a struggle to get him down our narrow stairs to the ambulance. In the emergency room it was clear something was seriously wrong. “What’s your name?” asked the ER doctor. Terence responded correctly. “What’s the date?” Terence gave the doctor what the kids and I recognized as “Daddy’s ‘Just how dumb are you?’ look.” But he couldn’t answer. “Who’s the president of the United States?” That triggered something. “That moron Bush,” he said. Terence was admitted that night to a ward where Eric Goren was doing his last intensive care overnight shift of a three- year residency. In a small break room, alongside vending machines selling soft drinks and chips, Goren told me that bleeding from the lungs might suddenly become uncontrollable. If that happened, what should he and his team do? No Heroic Measures I wanted to see whether Flaherty still thought Sutent could make a difference. I couldn’t reach him. Goren and I settled on what the hospital called Code-A. Do everything possible to prevent a major bleed or anything life-threatening. Don’t take heroic measures if death seems inevitable. I called the children in. My sister picked up Georgia at a sleepover, and Terry’s friends Suzie, Ben and Will brought him from a party. My decision, so hard on Saturday, was easy by Monday. The scans now were showing signs of cancer in his brain, surrounded by a cascade of hundreds of tiny strokes. I had Terence’s signed living will, but I didn’t need it. I knew what this man who lived for books, music and ideas would want. Flaherty arrived. He looked shaken. “I didn’t expect this,” he said. Reading Their Goodbyes That afternoon I signed the papers transferring Terence to hospice. The next day, Tuesday, the hospital staff took away the machines and the monitors. The oncologists and radiologists and lab technicians disappeared. Another group of people — hospice nurses, social workers, chaplains and counselors for me and the children — began to arrive one by one, as the focus shifted from treating Terence to easing our transition. For the next three days, with Terence in the same hospital bed, we spent $14,022 on the pain medications ativan and dialudid, and on monitoring for him and counseling for a different kind of pain management for the children and me. The cost was less than a third of the previous four days’ $43,711. Terence drifted into a coma on Tuesday. I e-mailed his friends and read their goodbyes aloud, hoping he could hear and understand. I slept in a chair. At about 2:30 a.m. Friday, a noise in the hall startled me. I awoke just in time to hold his hand as he died. They gave me back his wedding ring the next day. Looking back, memories of my zeal to treat are tinged with sadness. Since I didn’t believe my husband was going to die, I never let us have the chance to say goodbye. Black-Bordered Notes Ten days later, the kids hung Daddy’s Christmas stocking alongside our three. I mailed the cards he had addressed months earlier, slipping in a black-bordered note. I threw away the protein bars, gave the energy drinks to a shelter and flushed an opened bottle of Sutent down the drain. Would I do it all again? Absolutely. I couldn’t not do it again. But I think had he known the costs, Terence would have fought the insurers spending enough, at roughly $200,000, to vaccinate almost a quarter-million children in developing countries. That’s how he would have thought about it. Late last year, I waded through a snowstorm to Keith Flaherty’s office in Boston, where he had moved to a new job that would let him intensify his work on targeted therapy. Did we help Terence? Or harm him? There’s a possibility, he said, that the treatment actually made the cancer worse, causing it to rage out of control at the end. Or, as another doctor suggested in passing at the time, that the strokes were a side effect of the Sutent, and not the cancer. Another Bell Curve Flaherty and I looked at the numbers. The average patient in his trial got 14 months of extra life. Without any treatment, Flaherty estimates that for someone at Terence’s stage of the disease it was three months. Terence got 17 months — still within the realm of chance, but way, way up on the bell curve. There’s another bell curve that starts about where Terence’s left off. It charts the survival times for patients treated not just with Sutent, Avastin and Nexavar but also Novartis’s Afinitor and GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s Votrient, made available within the past three years. Doctors and patients now are doing what we dreamed of, staggering one drug after another and buying years more of life. Slides on the results of the clinical trial, presented at the 2008 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed that Avastin and Nexavar worked well on a wide variety of patients. Only Flaherty and I know that the solitary tick mark at 17 months was Terence. Only I know that those 17 months included an afternoon looking down at the Mediterranean with Georgia from a sunny balcony in Southern Spain. Moving Terry into his college dorm. Celebrating our 20th anniversary with a carriage ride through Philadelphia’s cobbled streets. A final Thanksgiving game of charades with cousins Margo and Glenn. And one last chance for Terence to pave the way for all those other poor sonsabitches. —-With assistance from Charles R. Babcock in Washington. Editors: Robert L. Simison , Anne Reifenberg To contact the reporter responsible for this story: Amanda Bennett in New York at Abennett6@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

AIG Document New York Fed Kept Secret Shows Goldman Minted Most Toxic CDOs

February 23, 2010

By Richard Teitelbaum Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) — When a congressional panel convened a hearing on the government rescue of American International Group Inc. in January, the public scolding of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner got the most attention. Lawmakers said the former head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank had presided over a backdoor bailout of Wall Street firms and a coverup. Geithner countered that he had acted properly to avert the collapse of the financial system. A potentially more important development slipped by with less notice, Bloomberg Markets reports in its April issue. Representative Darrell Issa , the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought $62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG. These were the deals that pushed the insurer to the brink of insolvency — and were eventually paid in full at taxpayer expense. The New York Fed, which secretly engineered the bailout, prevented the full publication of the document for more than a year, even when AIG wanted it released. That lack of disclosure shows how the government has obstructed a proper accounting of what went wrong in the financial crisis, author and former investment banker William Cohan says. “This secrecy is one more example of how the whole bailout has been done in such a slithering manner,” says Cohan, who wrote “House of Cards” (Doubleday, 2009), about the unraveling of Bear Stearns Cos. “There’s been no accountability.” CDOs Identified The document Issa made public cuts to the heart of the controversy over the September 2008 AIG rescue by identifying specific securities, known as collateralized-debt obligations, that had been insured with the company. The banks holding the credit-default swaps, a type of derivative, collected collateral as the insurer was downgraded and the CDOs tumbled in value. The public can now see for the first time how poorly the securities performed, with losses exceeding 75 percent of their notional value in some cases. Compounding this, the document and Bloomberg data demonstrate that the banks that bought the swaps from AIG are mostly the same firms that underwrote the CDOs in the first place. The banks should have to explain how they managed to buy protection from AIG primarily on securities that fell so sharply in value, says Daniel Calacci , a former swaps trader and marketer who’s now a structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases, banks also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans bundled into the CDOs, he says. ‘Too Uncanny’ “It’s almost too uncanny,” Calacci says. “If these banks had insight into the underlying loans because they had relationships with banks, originators or servicers, that’s at the least unethical.” The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A, and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured — more than any other investment bank. Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created $13.2 billion of the CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion. These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so much under wraps, Professor James Cox of Duke University School of Law says: “They may have been trying to shield Goldman — for Goldman’s sake or out of macro concerns that another investment bank would be at risk.” Poor Performers Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment. Schedule A also makes possible a more complete examination of why AIG collapsed. Joseph Cassano , the former president of the AIG Financial Products unit that sold the swaps, said on a December 2007 conference call that his firm pulled back from selling swaps on U.S. subprime residential CDOs in late 2005. The list shows that the $21.2 billion in CDOs minted after 2005, mostly based on prime and commercial mortgages, performed as badly as or worse than the earlier subprime vintages. A lawyer for Cassano declined to comment. As details of the coverup emerge, so does anger at the perceived conflicts. Philip Angelides , chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission , at a hearing held by his panel on Jan. 13, questioned how banks could underwrite poisonous securities and then bet against them. “It sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars,” he said. ‘Part of the Coverup’ Janet Tavakoli , founder of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc., a Chicago-based consulting firm, says the New York Fed’s secrecy has helped hide who’s responsible for the worst of the disaster. “The suppression of the details in the list of counterparties was part of the coverup,” she says. E-mails between Fed and AIG officials that Issa released in January show that the efforts to keep Schedule A under wraps came from the New York Fed. Revelation of the messages contributed to the heated atmosphere at the House hearing. “What date did you know there was a coverup?” Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray of California demanded of Geithner. Lawmakers used the word coverup more than a dozen times as they peppered Geithner with questions. Geithner said that he wasn’t involved in matters of disclosure and that his former colleagues did the best they could. In a Jan. 19 statement, the New York Fed said, “AIG at all times remained responsible for complying with its disclosure requirements under the securities laws.” The government has committed more than $182 billion to AIG and owns almost 80 percent of the company. Document Withheld In late November 2008, the insurer was planning to include Schedule A in a regulatory filing — until a lawyer for the Fed said it wasn’t necessary, according to the e-mails. The document was an attachment to the agreement between AIG and Maiden Lane III, the fund that the Fed established in November 2008 to hold the CDOs after the swap contracts were settled. AIG paid its counter­parties — the banks — the full value of the contracts, after accounting for any collateral that had been posted, and took the devalued CDOs in exchange. As requested by the New York Fed, AIG kept the bank names out of the Dec. 24 filing and edited out a sentence that said they got full payment. The New York Fed’s January 2010 statement said the sentence was deleted because AIG technically paid slightly less than 100 cents on the dollar. Paid in Full Before the New York Fed ordered AIG to pay the banks in full, the company was trying to negotiate to pay off the credit- default swaps at a discount or “haircut.” By March 2009, responding to a request from Christopher Dodd , chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, AIG released the names of the counterparty banks. In a filing later that month, AIG included Schedule A, showing bank names while withholding all identification of the underlying CDOs and the amounts of collateral each bank had collected. The document had more than 800 redactions. In May 2009, AIG again filed Schedule A, this time with about 400 redactions. It revealed that Paris-based Societe Generale got the biggest payout from AIG, or $16.5 billion, followed by Goldman Sachs, which got $14 billion, and then Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch. It still kept secret the CDOs’ identification and information that would show performance. ‘Right to Know’ “This is something that belongs in the public domain because it was done with public money,” Issa says. “The public has the right to know what was done with their money and who benefited from it.” Now, thanks to Issa, the list is out, and specific information about AIG’s unraveling can be learned from it. At the Jan. 27 hearing, the New York Fed was still arguing that the contents of Schedule A shouldn’t be fully disclosed. Thomas Baxter , the New York Fed’s general counsel, testified that divulging the names of the CDOs could erode their value: “We will be hurt because traders in the market will know what we’re holding.” Tavakoli calls that wrong. With many CDOs, providing more information to the market will give the manager a greater chance of fetching a realistic price, she says. Jack Gutt , a spokesman for the New York Fed, declined to comment, as did AIG’s Mark Herr . Bad to Worse Tavakoli also says that the poor performance of the underlying securities (which are actually specific slices or tranches of CDOs) shows they were toxic in the first place and were probably replenished with bundles of mortgages that were particularly troubled. Managers who oversee CDOs after they are created have discretion in choosing the mortgage bonds used to replenish them. “The original CDO deals were bad enough,” Tavakoli says. “For some that allow reinvesting or substitution, any reasonable professional would ask why these assets were being traded into the portfolio. The Schedule A shows that we should be investigating these deals.” Among the CDOs on Schedule A with notional values of more than $1 billion, the worst performer was a tranche identified as Davis Square Funding Ltd.’s DVSQ 2006-6A CP. It was held by Societe Generale, underwritten by Goldman Sachs and managed by TCW Group Inc., a Los Angeles-based unit of SocGen, according to Bloomberg data. It lost 77.7 percent of its value — though it isn’t in default and continues to pay. SocGen spokesman James Galvin and TCW spokeswoman Erin Freeman declined to comment. Documentation Needed Ed Grebeck , CEO of Tempus Advisors, a global debt market strategy firm in Stamford, Connecticut, agrees that more digging is necessary. “You need all the documentation and more than that, all the e-mails,” he says. “That would allow us to understand what went wrong and how to fix it going forward.” Neil Barofsky , the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who delivered a report on the AIG bailout in November, says he’s not finished. He has begun a probe of why his office wasn’t provided all of the 250,000 pages of documents, including e-mails and phone logs, that Issa’s committee received from the New York Fed. Schedule A provides some answers — and raises questions that need to be tackled to avoid the next expensive bailout. To contact the reporter on this story: Richard Teitelbaum in New York at rteitelbaum1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Secret AIG Document Shows Goldman Minted Most Toxic CDOs

February 23, 2010

By Richard Teitelbaum Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) — When a congressional panel convened a hearing on the government rescue of American International Group Inc. in January, the public scolding of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner got the most attention. Lawmakers said the former head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank had presided over a backdoor bailout of Wall Street firms and a coverup. Geithner countered that he had acted properly to avert the collapse of the financial system. A potentially more important development slipped by with less notice, Bloomberg Markets reports in its April issue. Representative Darrell Issa , the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought $62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG. These were the deals that pushed the insurer to the brink of insolvency — and were eventually paid in full at taxpayer expense. The New York Fed, which secretly engineered the bailout, prevented the full publication of the document for more than a year, even when AIG wanted it released. That lack of disclosure shows how the government has obstructed a proper accounting of what went wrong in the financial crisis, author and former investment banker William Cohan says. “This secrecy is one more example of how the whole bailout has been done in such a slithering manner,” says Cohan, who wrote “House of Cards” (Doubleday, 2009), about the unraveling of Bear Stearns Cos. “There’s been no accountability.” CDOs Identified The document Issa made public cuts to the heart of the controversy over the September 2008 AIG rescue by identifying specific securities, known as collateralized-debt obligations, that had been insured with the company. The banks holding the credit-default swaps, a type of derivative, collected collateral as the insurer was downgraded and the CDOs tumbled in value. The public can now see for the first time how poorly the securities performed, with losses exceeding 75 percent of their notional value in some cases. Compounding this, the document and Bloomberg data demonstrate that the banks that bought the swaps from AIG are mostly the same firms that underwrote the CDOs in the first place. The banks should have to explain how they managed to buy protection from AIG primarily on securities that fell so sharply in value, says Daniel Calacci , a former swaps trader and marketer who’s now a structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases, banks also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans bundled into the CDOs, he says. ‘Too Uncanny’ “It’s almost too uncanny,” Calacci says. “If these banks had insight into the underlying loans because they had relationships with banks, originators or servicers, that’s at the least unethical.” The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A, and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured — more than any other investment bank. Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created $13.2 billion of the CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion. These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so much under wraps, Professor James Cox of Duke University School of Law says: “They may have been trying to shield Goldman — for Goldman’s sake or out of macro concerns that another investment bank would be at risk.” Poor Performers Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment. Schedule A also makes possible a more complete examination of why AIG collapsed. Joseph Cassano , the former president of the AIG Financial Products unit that sold the swaps, said on a December 2007 conference call that his firm pulled back from selling swaps on U.S. subprime residential CDOs in late 2005. The list shows that the $21.2 billion in CDOs minted after 2005, mostly based on prime and commercial mortgages, performed as badly as or worse than the earlier subprime vintages. A lawyer for Cassano declined to comment. As details of the coverup emerge, so does anger at the perceived conflicts. Philip Angelides , chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission , at a hearing held by his panel on Jan. 13, questioned how banks could underwrite poisonous securities and then bet against them. “It sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars,” he said. ‘Part of the Coverup’ Janet Tavakoli , founder of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc., a Chicago-based consulting firm, says the New York Fed’s secrecy has helped hide who’s responsible for the worst of the disaster. “The suppression of the details in the list of counterparties was part of the coverup,” she says. E-mails between Fed and AIG officials that Issa released in January show that the efforts to keep Schedule A under wraps came from the New York Fed. Revelation of the messages contributed to the heated atmosphere at the House hearing. “What date did you know there was a coverup?” Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray of California demanded of Geithner. Lawmakers used the word coverup more than a dozen times as they peppered Geithner with questions. Geithner said that he wasn’t involved in matters of disclosure and that his former colleagues did the best they could. In a Jan. 19 statement, the New York Fed said, “AIG at all times remained responsible for complying with its disclosure requirements under the securities laws.” The government has committed more than $182 billion to AIG and owns almost 80 percent of the company. Document Withheld In late November 2008, the insurer was planning to include Schedule A in a regulatory filing — until a lawyer for the Fed said it wasn’t necessary, according to the e-mails. The document was an attachment to the agreement between AIG and Maiden Lane III, the fund that the Fed established in November 2008 to hold the CDOs after the swap contracts were settled. AIG paid its counter­parties — the banks — the full value of the contracts, after accounting for any collateral that had been posted, and took the devalued CDOs in exchange. As requested by the New York Fed, AIG kept the bank names out of the Dec. 24 filing and edited out a sentence that said they got full payment. The New York Fed’s January 2010 statement said the sentence was deleted because AIG technically paid slightly less than 100 cents on the dollar. Paid in Full Before the New York Fed ordered AIG to pay the banks in full, the company was trying to negotiate to pay off the credit- default swaps at a discount or “haircut.” By March 2009, responding to a request from Christopher Dodd , chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, AIG released the names of the counterparty banks. In a filing later that month, AIG included Schedule A, showing bank names while withholding all identification of the underlying CDOs and the amounts of collateral each bank had collected. The document had more than 800 redactions. In May 2009, AIG again filed Schedule A, this time with about 400 redactions. It revealed that Paris-based Societe Generale got the biggest payout from AIG, or $16.5 billion, followed by Goldman Sachs, which got $14 billion, and then Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch. It still kept secret the CDOs’ identification and information that would show performance. ‘Right to Know’ “This is something that belongs in the public domain because it was done with public money,” Issa says. “The public has the right to know what was done with their money and who benefited from it.” Now, thanks to Issa, the list is out, and specific information about AIG’s unraveling can be learned from it. At the Jan. 27 hearing, the New York Fed was still arguing that the contents of Schedule A shouldn’t be fully disclosed. Thomas Baxter , the New York Fed’s general counsel, testified that divulging the names of the CDOs could erode their value: “We will be hurt because traders in the market will know what we’re holding.” Tavakoli calls that wrong. With many CDOs, providing more information to the market will give the manager a greater chance of fetching a realistic price, she says. Jack Gutt , a spokesman for the New York Fed, declined to comment, as did AIG’s Mark Herr . Bad to Worse Tavakoli also says that the poor performance of the underlying securities (which are actually specific slices or tranches of CDOs) shows they were toxic in the first place and were probably replenished with bundles of mortgages that were particularly troubled. Managers who oversee CDOs after they are created have discretion in choosing the mortgage bonds used to replenish them. “The original CDO deals were bad enough,” Tavakoli says. “For some that allow reinvesting or substitution, any reasonable professional would ask why these assets were being traded into the portfolio. The Schedule A shows that we should be investigating these deals.” Among the CDOs on Schedule A with notional values of more than $1 billion, the worst performer was a tranche identified as Davis Square Funding Ltd.’s DVSQ 2006-6A CP. It was held by Societe Generale, underwritten by Goldman Sachs and managed by TCW Group Inc., a Los Angeles-based unit of SocGen, according to Bloomberg data. It lost 77.7 percent of its value — though it isn’t in default and continues to pay. SocGen spokesman James Galvin and TCW spokeswoman Erin Freeman declined to comment. Documentation Needed Ed Grebeck , CEO of Tempus Advisors, a global debt market strategy firm in Stamford, Connecticut, agrees that more digging is necessary. “You need all the documentation and more than that, all the e-mails,” he says. “That would allow us to understand what went wrong and how to fix it going forward.” Neil Barofsky , the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who delivered a report on the AIG bailout in November, says he’s not finished. He has begun a probe of why his office wasn’t provided all of the 250,000 pages of documents, including e-mails and phone logs, that Issa’s committee received from the New York Fed. Schedule A provides some answers — and raises questions that need to be tackled to avoid the next expensive bailout. To contact the reporter on this story: Richard Teitelbaum in New York at rteitelbaum1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Ismael Hossein-zadeh: A New Phase, Not Just Another Recession

February 15, 2010

It is becoming increasingly clear that the financial meltdown of 2008 and the subsequent economic contraction that continues to this day represent more than just another recessionary cycle. More importantly, they represent a structural change, a new phase, the phase of the dominance of “finance capital,” as the late Austro-German political economist Rudolf Hilferding put it. Although the current domination of our economy by finance capital seems new, it is in fact a throwback or “retrogression” (as financial expert Michael Hudson puts it) to the capitalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries; that is, the capitalism of monopolistic big business and gigantic financial institutions. The rising economic and political influence of powerful financial interests in the early 20th Century led a number of political economists (such as John Hobson, Rudolf Hilferding and Vladimir Lenin) to write passionately on the ominous trends of those developments — developments that significantly contributed to the eruption of the two World Wars and precipitated the devastating Great Depression of the 1930s, by creating an unsustainable asset price bubble in the form of overblown stock prices. The harrowing experience of the Great Depression, followed by the devastating years of World War II, generated momentous social upheavals and extensive working class struggles worldwide. The ensuing “threat of revolution,” as F.D.R. put it, and the “menacing” pressure from below prompted reform from above — hence, the New Deal reforms in the US and socialist/Social-Democratic reforms in Europe. Combined, these historic developments significantly curtailed the size and the influence of big business and powerful financial interests — alas, only for a while. As those reforms saved Western capitalism from more radical social changes, they also provided grounds for its regeneration and expansion. By the 1970s, finance capital, headed by major US banks, had risen, once again, to its pre-Depression levels of concentration, of controlling the major bulk of national resources, and of shaping economic policy. Since then, big banks have created a number of financial instabilities and economic crises — usually through predatory, sub-prime loan pushing or unsustainable debt bubbles. These include the “Third World debt crisis” of the 1980s and 1990s, the 1997-98 financial crises in Southeast Asia and Russia, the tech or dot.com bubble of the 1990s in the U.S. and other major market economies, and the latest, housing/real estate bubble that burst in 2008. A number of characteristics distinguish the stage of the dominance of finance capital from lower phases of capitalist development. Under liberal capitalism of the competitive industrial era, a long cycle of economic contraction would usually wipe out not only jobs and production, but also the debt burdens that were accumulated during the long cycle of expansion that preceded the cycle of contraction. In the stage of finance capital, however, debt overhead is propped up through its monetization, or socialization, even during a most severe financial meltdown such as that which occurred in 2008. Indeed, due to the influence of the powerful financial interests, national or taxpayers’ debt burden is further exacerbated by the government’s generous bailout plans of the bankrupt financial giants, that is, by simply transferring or converting private to public debt. In The Class Struggle in France , Karl Marx wrote, “Public credit rests on confidence that the state will allow itself to be exploited by the wolves of finance.” Today we see more clearly how the “wolves of finance” are hollowing out national treasuries and subjecting governments to unsustainable debt burdens. This explains the near bankruptcy not only of the US Government but also of many of the European states, especially those of Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and a number of East European countries. Proposed government “solution” in all these cases is to have the general public pay for the gambler’s debt — in the form of extensive cuts in essential social programs and drastic reductions in living standards. A major hallmark of the age of finance capital is domination of the State and/or political process by the financial oligarchy. Bank- or finance-friendly policies of the government have been facilitated largely through generous pouring of money into the election of “favorite” policymakers. Extensive deregulations that led to the 2008 financial crisis, the scandalous bank bailout in response to the crisis, and the failure to impose effective restraints on Wall Street after the crisis can all be traced to Wall Street’s political power. Wall Street spent more than $5 billion on federal campaign contributions and lobbying from 1998 to 2008, and its fervent spending on the purchase of politicians continues unabated. Michael Hudson, Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri (Kansas City), aptly calls this ominous process of the buying out of policymakers by major contributors to their election “privatization of the political process.” Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, likewise argues that the political system “is monopolized by a few powerful interest groups that…have exercised their power to monopolize the economy for the benefit of themselves.” Such sentiments regarding the class nature of the State are corroborations of Vladimir Lenin’s characterization of the capitalist state as “the executive committee of the ruling class.” Lenin was often scoffed at by the capitalist ruling elites when he made this statement over ninety years ago; they deviously dismissed him as having overstated his case. Perhaps it is time to dust off and read old copies of Lenin’s The State and Revolution , if only to better understand the incestuous politico-business relationship between the State and the financial oligarchy of our time. Another hallmark of the stage of finance capital is that, under the influence of the powerful financial interests, government intervention in national economic affairs has come to essentially mean implementation of neoliberal or supply-side restructuring policies. Government and business leaders have for the last several decades used severe recessionary cycles as opportunities to escalate application of neoliberal economic measures in order to reverse or undermine the New Deal reforms. Naomi Klein has called this strategy of using periods of economic crisis to reverse the gains of the New Deal and other reform programs ” the shock doctrine ” — a strategy that takes advantage of the overwhelming crisis times to apply supply-side austerity programs and redistribute national resources from the bottom up. This explains how under the Bush-Obama administrations the financial oligarchy has been able to use the failure of the Lehman Brothers and the specter of “apocalyptic” failure of other financial giants to extract their gambling losses from the public purse. It is generally believed that neoliberal supply-side economic policies began with the election of Ronald Reagan as the president. Evidence shows, however, that efforts at undermining the New Deal economics in favor of returning to the old-time religion of market fundamentalism began long before Reagan arrived in the White House. As Alan Nasser , emeritus professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia (Washington), points out, “The foundations of neoliberalism were established in economic theory by liberal Democrats at the Brookings Institution, and in political practice by the Carter administration.” Neither President Clinton changed the course of neoliberal corporate welfare policies, nor is President Obama hesitating to carry out those policies. His administration has made available more than $12 trillion in cash infusions, loans and guarantees to the financial industry, but for state governments that are facing massive budget deficits, it has thus far provided only one quarter of 1 percent of that amount in federal stimulus funds — about $30 billion. The White House is sitting by while states across the country lay off workers and slash spending on education, health care and other essential social programs. The left/liberal supporters of President Obama who bemoan his “predicament in the face of brutal Republican challenges” should look past the president’s liberal/populist posturing. Evidence shows that, contrary to Barack Obama’s claims, his presidential campaign was heavily financed by the Wall Street financial titans and their influential lobbyists. Large Wall Street contributions began pouring into his campaign only after he was thoroughly vetted by the powerful Wall Street interests and was deemed a viable (indeed, ideal) candidate for presidency. On ideological or philosophical grounds too President Obama is closer to the neoliberal, supply-side tradition than the New Deal tradition. This is clearly revealed , for example, in his The Audacity of Hope , where he shows his disdain for “…those who still champion the old time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100% from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted…bereft of energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization. . . .” It is no accident that Mr. Obama has surrounded himself by neoliberal economic experts and financial advisors such as Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and Ben Bernanke. Not only has the major bulk of the Obama administration’s anti-recession assistance been devoted to the rescue of the Wall Street financial magnates, but also the relatively small stimulus spending is funneled largely through the Wall Street (mainly through generous government loans and tax incentives) in the hope that this would create jobs. This stands in sharp contrast to what F.D.R. did in the earlier years of the Great Depression: creating jobs directly and immediately by the government itself. The main purpose of the administration’s (or, shall we say, of the ruling kleptocracy, both Democratic and Republican) strategy of delaying direct job creation is to stall, and fraudulently keep the hopes of the unemployed alive, until the massive supply-side corporate welfare giveaways would eventually begin to gradually trickledown and slowly create jobs. In the absence of compelling pressure from below, this neoliberal scheme of further weakening the working class may eventually succeed. But even if successful, the jobs thus created would be supply-side jobs, subsistence or below-subsistence jobs, which would be grabbed by desperate workers at any price/wage, not union jobs that would pay decent wages and benefits. Political theatrics within the ruling circles over “how to create jobs” should not mask the fact that delays in job creation are deliberate: they are designed to further subdue American workers and bring down their wages and benefits in line with those of workers in countries that compete with the U.S. in global workers. It is part of the insidious neoliberal race to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator in terms of international labor costs. It is, indeed, an application of the IMF’s notorious Structural Adjustment Program of austerity measures that have been vigorously pursued in many less-developed countries for decades — with disastrous results. It is no accident that President Obama frequently pleads with the unemployed Americans to “be patient,” and “keep hope alive.” What he really means to say is: “look, we have invested trillions of dollars through bailout schemes and other supply-side recovery measures. So, please be patient and wait until they come to fruition and benefit you through trickledown effects.” At least, Ronald Reagan had the honesty and integrity to explicitly defend or promote his supply-side philosophy. Perhaps that is why Barack Obama can be called Ronald Reagan in disguise. In the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown, many left/liberal economists envisioned an opportunity: a reversion back to the Keynesian-type economic policies. One year later, it is increasingly becoming clear that such expectations amounted to no more than wishful thinking — a dawning recognition that, regardless of the resident of the White House, economic policies are nowadays heavily influenced by the powerful financial interests. The view that economic policy would be switched back to the Keynesian or New Deal paradigm by default stems from the rather naïve supposition that policy making is a simple matter of technical expertise or economic know-how, that is, a matter of choice–between good or “regulated capitalism” and bad or “neoliberal capitalism.” A major reason for such hopes or illusions is a perception of the State that its power is above economic or class interests; a perception that fails to see the fact that national policy-making apparatus is largely dominated by a kleptocratic elite that is guided by the imperatives of big capital, especially finance capital. Historical evidence shows, however, that more than anything else the Keynesian or New Deal reforms were a product of the pressure from the people. Economic policy-making is not independent of politics and/or policy-makers who are, in turn, not independent of the financial interests they are supposed to discipline or regulate. Stabilization, restructuring or regulatory policies are often subtle products of the balance of social forces, or outcome of the class struggle. Policies of economic restructuring in response to major crises can benefit the masses only if there is compelling pressure from the grassroots. In the absence of an overwhelming pressure from below (similar to that of the 1930s), Keynesian or New Deal economic reforms could remain a (fondly-remembered) one-time experience in the history of economic reforms. Ismael Hossein-zadeh , author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism , teaches Economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.

Read the full article →

Raymond J. Learsy: The Question Unasked Again and Again of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein and Hank Paulson

February 8, 2010

A stunning and disturbingly informative front page Sunday New York Times article was written by the Time’s Business Page columnist Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story, “Testy Conflict With Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Precipice”. It quotes Bill Brown, a Duke University Law Professor and former Goldman and A.I.G. employee saying that the dispute between the two companies “was the tip of the iceberg of this whole crisis”. The article details the demand for billions of dollars made against A.I.G. ‘s complex insurance derivatives (Credit Default Swaps and Obligations) by Goldman, claiming that pay downs were triggered as the housing mortgage market collapsed. All the while Goldman was taking proprietary positions, in effect shorting the housing backed mortgage instruments, allegedly pushing their values down, thereby setting the stage for a rancorous dispute with AIG. The dispute centered around establishing the values being assigned to the underlying instruments and in consequence the level of pay down owed to Goldman. According to the article, Goldman resisted letting third parties value these securities even though third party price determination was required according to the contract documents. Nonetheless with the housing market melting away, billions were transferred by A.I.G. to trading partners especially Goldman before September 2008 when A.I.G. was on the verge of collapse. In the year before the A.I.G. bailout Goldman had already collected $7 billion from A.I.G. and of course many billions more after the bailout. This in spite of a determination by Black Rock, one of the nation’s leading asset management firms, that Goldman’s valuations on the A.I.G. derivatives were “consistently lower than third party prices,” thereby making the pay downs from A.I.G. to Goldman greater than they needed to be. Further, according to the NYTimes, the SEC is investigating whether any of Goldman’s demands improperly distressed the mortgage market, in that Goldman would stand to gain handsomely from the implosion of the housing market and the crash in value of housing backed mortgages. In 2006 Hank Paulson left Goldman Sachs to become Secretary of the Treasury in the Bush Administration. That same year Goldman Sachs began to “make huge trades that would pay off if the mortgage market soured. The further mortgage securities fell, the greater were Goldman’s profits.” Consider, you own your home and here was a financial behemoth, through its trading strategies, doing all in its power to make your home worth as little as possible. Ah, the wonders of creative finance! This post on November 20th, 2009, after the conclusion of hearings by the Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, posed “The Key Question No One Asked About Goldman’s Role In The AIG Bailout”, specifically raising the unasked/unanswered question: “What was the nature of the myriad discussions at the height of the crisis between Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Chairman Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd Blankfein?” In the hope that this key question would be touched upon during the hearings of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on January 27th 2010, the issue was brought up again with the post on January 16th: “The House Oversight Committee Sets Its Focus Where The Senate Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Feared to Tread” Yet again, to the best of my knowledge, even with Blankfein and Paulson testifying to the panel, along with the current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the nature of the direct interchange between Paulson and Blankfein, the gist of their telephone calls and whether AIG was discussed between them then or before, was not touched upon specifically by the committee other than some muted questions on staff contacts. Clearly with the information we now have from the NY Times’ in depth reporting, the contact and the content of the communication between the two Goldman Chairman becomes ever more significant. More specifically: -Was A.I.G. brought up during their discussions in September? -Given that Goldman’s trading strategy of betting against the mortgage market dated back to 2006, was AIG discussed between the two prior to September 2008? -Was the nature of AIG’s exposure to Goldman known to Paulson or anyone on his staff. -Given a statement made in a Goldman report in August 18, 2008 quoted in the NYTimes article that if a trading partner “is not in a position of weakness why would it accept anything less than the full amount of protection for which it had paid,” as though the condition of the insurer who covered these speculative bets was of no merit. Was Goldman already aware that a badly damaged and bleeding A.I.G. would be resurrected by the government and they would be paid in full permitting them to be as unbending in their negotiations with A.I.G. as they were, in the knowledge that the government would backstop them? -If so, was that information, which was worth billions to Goldman, a point of conversation, or winks and nods, between Paulson and Blankfein? -Might Blankfein have known that Paulson, as events proved out, considered A.I.G. too big to fail, and that it was not a decision arrived at at the penultimate moment but a decision held all along, or worse and hopefully not the case, that Paulson found Goldman too intertwined with A.I.G. to permit it to happen? -Was the Treasury and the Fed aware that the French Bank, Societe Generale’s exposure to A.I.G. was largely at Goldman’s behest and that A.I.G paying down its counterparty obligations to Societe Generale’s after receiving its own government bailout was putting additional money into Goldman’s pocket? I realize that is all more than one question, but they all stem from the first question and now the NYTimes expose. Basically what was the exchange of information between Paulson and Blankfein and/or their staffs, and what impact might it have had on Goldman’s intransigence vis a vis A.I.G. And if inside information may have, advertently or inadvertently been exchanged, what redress is there to the public that footed these many billions?

Read the full article →

Alan Meese: The New DOJ: Lessons Learned From the Ticketmaster Live Nation Decision

January 29, 2010

The Obama administration’s announcement yesterday to approve, with some modifications, the merger between Live Nation and Ticketmaster marked a fittingly undramatic end to what many hoped would be the watershed to a new economic policy. The administration’s decision instead reflected a commitment to principle over politics and pragmatism over populism. Many hoped that the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger would fall prey to a new economic populism. When the companies announced their plans to merge, some characterized the merger as a consolidation of “entertainment powerhouses” designed to inflate ticket prices and squeeze consumers. Public figures, including none other than Bruce Springsteen, condemned the combination. Members of Congress piled on, characterizing the transaction as a naked combination of industrial titans and demanding action from antitrust enforcers. The history of antitrust policy is replete with such populist anger towards supposed industrial power, and the Sherman Act itself was largely created in response to a screaming public. Typical demands for rigorous enforcement come from small and technologically obsolete companies resisting the onslaught of new competitive forces. Typical demands for restrained enforcement come from politically-connected professional establishments that disdain competition and decry enforcement as unwanted government interference. This politicization of antitrust, from all ideological corners, rarely results in sound economic policy and has led both to overzealous enforcement, protecting inefficient firms from more efficient rivals, and to permissive restraints, giving sanction to destructive cartels and monopolies. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger would have been another procompetitive victim to an angry public. Our careful analysis of the proposed merger reveals that it is much more a response to Schumpeterian technological change than an effort to concentrate market power. In other words, the companies are combining forces to pursue an innovative business model, one that pursues new consumer demands and responds to the rise of electronic music. It is not an attempt to acquire a stranglehold over an industry that technological change has made increasingly resistant to strangleholds. The populist anger directed at the proposed merger — which was in no small part fueled by the companies’ smaller competitors who feared having difficulty competing effectively against the new company– characteristically did not discern the complexities of the industry and evaluate the merger’s likely competitive impact. Of course, few in Washington brake for complexity. Which is why it is a relief the Obama administration did. Despite being ridiculed as “the dismal science,” economics is a necessary ingredient to policies that enhance consumer welfare and disperse the plentiful benefits of market competition. Even while the Obama Administration might engage in antitrust saber rattling, its approval the Live Nation-Ticketmaster and the associated consent decree shows the triumph of economic reasoning that is often counterintuitive to policy advocates. Its settlement further extracts concessions that further enhances competition, promotes innovation, and protects consumers. It is the commendable product of careful analysis reflects a deliberate navigation across the minefield of antitrust politicization. While reasonable minds might differ with both our own analysis of the merger and the administration’s conclusion, such differences should focus on the merits the transaction and not rhetoric from politicos. Bruce Springsteen himself admonished all of us to avoid leaping to compulsive conclusions when he observed, “God have mercy on the man who doubts what he’s sure of.” Effective antitrust requires nothing less. Alan Meese is the Ball Professor of Law at William and Mary. Barak Richman is a Professor of Law and Business at Duke University.

Read the full article →

7 Things About The Economy Everyone Should Be Worried About

January 23, 2010

An extraordinary series of articles recently appeared on the Nieman Watchdog Web site, anchored by investigative reporter John Hanrahan and mostly based on interviews with some of the nation’s most perceptive, prescient and prophetic economists. The series laid out a broad landscape of economic issues that have been largely overlooked during the reporting of the nation’s economic collapse — to our great peril. Hanrahan’s articles explore key elements of the story that reporters should have been — and should still be — writing about. Among them: The endemic fraud at the heart of the collapse, the resultant need for a comprehensive dissection of some key financial institutions, how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have weakened the economy , the dramatic effects of the crash on domestic poverty and world poverty , and underlying it all, the critically important role of government spending in a recovery, be it through a second stimulus or expanded entitlements or jobs programs, all of which requires that deficits be seen, for the short run at least, as the solution, not the problem. As a coda to Hanrahan’s series, here is a list of seven things all of us should be more alarmed by than we currently are, going forward. A common theme underlying them all is that while our leaders — and the voices of conventional wisdom — treat our current recession as cyclical in nature, and are essentially mostly just waiting around for growth to pick up again, there is plenty of reason to believe that this crisis was instead an expression of structural problems. And if that is so, and we don’t take the proper action, then the wait could be a long one. No. 1: The middle class may never be the same again The full effects of the crash of 2007-2008 on the lives of regular Americans has yet to be fully appreciated. For most members of the middle class, their sense of financial well-being was largely based on the size of their 401(k)s and their equity as homeowners. After the collapse of stock prices and with the steep drop in home prices, many may never feel the same way again, or spend their money as confidently. While 401(k)s have somewhat bounced back, about one in four homeowners now actually have negative equity — are “underwater”. A recent study by Barry P. Bosworth and Rosanna Smart for Brookings finds that American households lost $13 trillion in wealth between mid-2007 and March 2009, or about 15 percent in all. That decline badly hit baby boomers just as they’re headed into retirement. And middle-income families whose head is age 50 or younger actually have smaller net incomes today than in 1983. Meanwhile, many American families spent much of the last decade (or two) living beyond their means, piling up debt on their credit cards, or “bubble borrowing.” Two University of Chicago researchers have found that the housing bubble hugely increased household consumption as homeowners borrowed on average $0.25 to $0.30 for every $1 increase on their home equity. Now that housing prices have crashed and credit is tight, the inevitable result, Atif Mian and Amir Sufi write somewhat euphemistically, is a “painful process of household de-leveraging.” Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren , an emerging hero among progressives in her role as chair of the congressional bailout oversight panel, sees the latest series of blows as the unfortunate culmination of a crisis that started taking form a generation ago. For long stretches of time, the growth in the nation’s GDP has gone almost entirely to the top 1% or less of the population. That has resulted in an dramatic shift in wealth away from the middle class, made the economy more vulnerable to disaster and made the toll of such a disaster more catastrophic to all but the wealthiest Americans. Warren writes: America today has plenty of rich and super-rich. But it has far more families who did all the right things, but who still have no real security. Going to college and finding a good job no longer guarantee economic safety. Paying for a child’s education and setting aside enough for a decent retirement have become distant dreams. Tens of millions of once-secure middle class families now live paycheck to paycheck, watching as their debts pile up and worrying about whether a pink slip or a bad diagnosis will send them hurtling over an economic cliff. She concludes: “America without a strong middle class? Unthinkable, but the once-solid foundation is shaking.” No. 2: The recovery could take a really long time Even assuming that we are at the beginning of an enduring recovery, there are many signs that it will be a slow one, and that it could be as long as a decade until most American families return to the standard of living they enjoyed before the crash. Most notably, unemployment is widely expected to be astronomically high for at least another year or two — remaining around 10 percent through 2010. And the recovery, such as it is, has been largely fueled by government money — not just the stimulus, but also the bailouts, targeted programs such as the homebuyers tax credit and “cash for clunkers,” and emergency spending on such things as extended unemployment insurance. What happens, however, when those stop? And none are designed to go on forever. Washington Post financial columnist Steven Pearlstein recently put it this way: My best guess is that the current upswings in economic output, confidence and financial asset prices are largely a reflection of the extraordinary fiscal and monetary juice provided by Treasury and the Federal Reserve, along with the natural rebound that occurs after a collapse in consumer and business spending like that which occurred in the first half of 2009. The surprising strength of the bounce-back testifies to the wisdom of the underlying strengths of the U.S. economy and the success of the policies, but is likely to peter out as the stimulus begins to wear off and the inventory correction is completed. No. 3: The recovery could only be temporary In an interview with Fox News back in November, Obama himself raised the possibility that the economy could once again head into a tailspin: I think it is important though to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the US economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession. This is the classic Wall-Street influenced worst-case scenario — with government spending as the villain and interest rate increases as the ultimate horror, leading to doom. But Obama may be worrying about the wrong side of the Wall Street/Main Street axis. The more likely reason the economy could tank again is because of insufficient demand. For the past decade or so, the growth of the U.S. economy was primarily fueled by the credit and housing bubbles — which now turn out to have been illusory. So what will spur growth this time? Especially with so many Americans out of work? Where’s the demand going to come from? Citing, among other things, the likelihood that the U.S. savings rate could go markedly higher in the coming years, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz warns that “we are not seeing a recovery of sustained consumption,”and says there is a “significant chance” of a double-dip recesssion for that reason. One plausible growth model involves extensive government investment in infrastructure, public works and public goods; expansion of social programs; and a return to pre-Reagan era-style growth based on rising middle-class incomes, where wages grow with productivity. Obama, however, captured as he is by the Wall Streeters and deficit hawks on his economics team , doesn’t seem inclined in that direction — nor, of course, does our utterly dysfunctional Congress. Obama and his advisers don’t seem to feel the need for a new approach to growth, or to explain where they think it will come from. Their posture is simply to hang tough until it returns. But the current economic situation is more fragile that some would have it. One particular danger is that because of bogus accounting rules, banks aren’t properly recognizing their losses — and are in fact largely insolvent. Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently speculated about what lies ahead for the economy. He wrote he see only a 10 percent chance of a double dip recession (vs. a 30 percent chance of a strong or solid recovery; a 40 percent chance of a jobless recovery; and a 20 percent chance of a stalled recovery). But his description of that particular scenario was particularly vivid: The commercial real estate market craters, carrying with it hundreds of regional banks and exposing how much junk is still on the books of major Wall Street banks. This triggers a long-awaited “correction” in the Dow and pushes the nation into another recession. Job losses rise. No. 4: Then what? This time, we don’t have the tools to get out of a recession The recognized way of dealing with a recession is to lower interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. But the Federal Reserve can’t lower the rate to below zero, so that’s out. The government can pour vast amounts of money into the economy, either through a stimulus or a massive bailout — or, as the case may be, both. But next time around, that money might not be there. Not only could the political will be lacking, but there is an upper limit to just how much money the country can borrow and spend at one time without it doing more harm than good. No. 5: The ‘very serious’ people in Washington are still obsessed about the deficit In Washington salons and newsrooms, you are not considered a serious person unless you are very, very worried about the deficit. The principle that reducing the deficit is of the greatest urgency (and must come at the cost of entitlements) is for some reason firmly lodged in the halls of power in Washington. An example of just how uncontroversial deficit hawkery is among Washington’s elite was provided by The Washington Post earlier this month when it apparently didn’t think twice about turning over its news columns to an organization funded by Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire investment banker on a crusade to reduce the deficit by looting Social Security. But deficit hawkery right now is not just ludicrous, it’s dangerous. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted recently, “the calls we’re already hearing for an end to stimulus, for reversing the steps the government and the Federal Reserve took to prop up the economy, will grow even louder.” He adds: But if those calls are heeded, we’ll be repeating the great mistake of 1937, when the Fed and the Roosevelt administration decided that the Great Depression was over, that it was time for the economy to throw away its crutches. Spending was cut back, monetary policy was tightened — and the economy promptly plunged back into the depths. No. 6: Whatever is making the stock market go up could go away The giddiness over the recovering stock market makes it easy to overlook some key questions about its rise. But what exactly has sent the Dow up almost 70 percent since March? Could it be another bubble? And could it burst? Was it a function of the extraordinary liquidity pumped into the system, first through the bailouts and now through nearly zero-interest loans to the banks? Was it foreign investors attracted by weak dollar and low interest rates? Where’s all the money coming from? No one seems to know. (Does anyone really care?) But whatever it was could presumably come to an end, devestating the market and the economy. No. 7: The hugely irresponsible financial sector remains unchastened Back in March, Obama described modern Wall Street as a “house of cards” and a “Ponzi scheme” in which “a relatively few do spectacularly well while the middle class loses ground.” In his major speech on the economy in April, the president proclaimed that “we cannot go back to the bubble-and-bust economy that led us to this point.” He continued: It is simply not sustainable to have a 21st-century financial system that is governed by 20th-century rules and regulations that allowed the recklessness of a few to threaten the entire economy. It is not sustainable to have an economy where in one year, 40 percent of our corporate profits came from a financial sector that was based on inflated home prices, maxed-out credit cards, over-leveraged banks and overvalued assets. It’s not sustainable to have an economy where the incomes of the top 1 percent has skyrocketed while the typical working household has seen their incomes decline by nearly $2,000. That’s just not a sustainable model for long-term prosperity. He was right. He even used powerful biblical imagery from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount to liken the boom-and-bust economy he inherited to a house built on sand and the future U.S. economy he is working toward to one built on a rock, that could weather a storm. But the big banks, with their enormous political clout, appear to be managing to duck the re-regulation that seemed inevitable a year ago — and they are now in fact more powerful than ever. The ultimate litmus test is that the banks that are “too big to fail,” rather than being broken up, are now making huge profits — and paying astronomical bonuses — based on the implicit guarantee that the government will pay their debts if they ever face bankruptcy. Indeed, that government backstop gives them every reason to place riskier bets than ever. Even Obama’s latest, much more assertive and populist proposal to limit bank activities does not break up those banks — and faces an uncertain future in our nearly paralyzed legislative branch. Economist Simon Johnson (the subject of one of Hanrahan’s articles ) recently said on CNBC: The conventional wisdom is you can’t have back-to-back major financial crises. I think we’re going to push that, we’re going to have a look and see whether that’s true. And the next 12 months could really be exciting. People could be very positive, but we are setting ourselves up for an enormous catastrophe. Indeed. By Obama’s biblical analogy, our economy is still very much built on sand –and the next big storm might not be very far away at all. Dan Froomkin is Washington Bureau Chief of the Huffington Post, and also Deputy Editor of NiemanWatchdog.org , where this post first appeared.

Read the full article →

Who Will Replace Bernanke: If He Goes, Who’s Next?

January 22, 2010

Should the Senate decline to confirm Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke for a second term, here’s a list of possible candidates to replace him: Donald L. Kohn , Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System A member of the Board since 2002, Kohn is a Ph.D. economist and a veteran of the Federal Reserve System. Before becoming a member of the Board, he served on its staff as Adviser to the Board for Monetary Policy (2001-02), Secretary of the Federal Open Market Committee (1987-2002), Director of the Division of Monetary Affairs (1987-2001), and Deputy Staff Director for Monetary and Financial Policy (1983-87). He also held several positions in the Board’s Division of Research and Statistics: Associate Director (1981-83), Chief of Capital Markets (1978-81), and Economist (1975-78). Dr. Kohn began his career as a Financial Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (1970-75). Dr. Kohn has written extensively on issues related to monetary policy and its implementation by the Federal Reserve. These works were published in volumes issued by various organizations, including the Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Korea, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Brookings Institution. Janet L. Yellen , President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President and CEO of the San Francisco Fed 2004, Yellen is a Ph.D. economist and member of the Fed’s top policy-making body, the Federal Open Market Committee. Dr. Yellen is professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley where she was the Eugene E. and Catherine M. Trefethen Professor of Business and Professor of Economics and has been a faculty member since 1980. Dr. Yellen earlier took leave from Berkeley for five years starting August 1994 when she served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System through February 1997, and then left the Fed to become chair of the Council of Economic Advisers through August 1999. She also chaired the Economic Policy Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development from 1997 to 1999. Dr. Yellen is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. She also serves on the board of directors of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and in the recent past, she served as president of the Western Economic Association, vice president of the American Economic Association and was a Fellow of the Yale Corporation. Dr. Yellen graduated summa cum laude from Brown University with a degree in economics in 1967, and received her Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University in 1971. She received the Wilbur Cross Medal from Yale in 1997, an honorary doctor of laws degree from Brown in 1998, and an honorary doctor of humane letters from Bard College in 2000. An assistant professor at Harvard University from 1971 to 1976, Dr. Yellen served as an economist with the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors in 1977 and 1978, and on the faculty of the London School of Economics and Political Science from 1978 to 1980. Dr. Yellen has written on a wide variety of macroeconomic issues, while specializing in the causes, mechanisms and implications of unemployment. Thomas M. Hoenig , President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Hoenig has led the Kansas City Fed since 1991. A Ph.D. economist, Hoenig has been one of the most vocal opponents of “too big to fail,” denouncing it in speeches and criticizing current efforts as largely anemic. Earlier this month he said of the megabanks: “Beginning to break them, to dismember them, is a fair thing to consider.” Dr. Hoenig joined the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1973 as an economist in the banking supervision area. He was named a vice president in 1981 and senior vice president in 1986. He has served as an instructor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and lectured on the U.S. banking and regulatory system for the People’s Bank of China. Dr. Hoenig is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and serves on the boards of directors of Midwest Research Institute and Union Station. Joseph E. Stiglitz , Nobel Laureate and economics professor at Columbia University Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, is the former head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and a former Chief Economist of the World Bank. He’s currently a professor at Columbia University. In 2001, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his analyses of markets with asymmetric information, and he was a lead author of the 1995 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Stiglitz was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1993-95, during the Clinton administration, and served as CEA chairman from 1995-97. He then became Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 1997-2000. In 2008 he was asked by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy to chair the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, which released its final report in September 2009. In 2009 he was appointed by the President of the United Nations General Assembly as chair of the Commission of Experts on Reform of the International Financial and Monetary System, which also released its report in September 2009. Stiglitz helped create a new branch of economics, “The Economics of Information,” exploring the consequences of information asymmetries and pioneering such pivotal concepts as adverse selection and moral hazard, which have now become standard tools not only of theorists, but of policy analysts. He has made major contributions to macro-economics and monetary theory, to development economics and trade theory, to public and corporate finance, to the theories of industrial organization and rural organization, and to the theories of welfare economics and of income and wealth distribution. In the 1980s, he helped revive interest in the economics of R&D. His work has helped explain the circumstances in which markets do not work well, and how selective government intervention can improve their performance. Christina Romer , Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers One of President Barack Obama’s top economic minds, the Ph.D. economist had been an economics professor for nearly 25 years. She had called for a $1 trillion stimulus package to help revive the economy. She was co-director of the Program in Monetary Economics at the National Bureau of Economic Research and served as Vice President of the American Economic Association, where she was also a member of the executive committee. She is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Romer is known for her research on the causes and recovery of the Great Depression, and on the role that fiscal and monetary policy played in the country’s economic recovery. Her most recent work, authored with her husband David Romer, also an economics professor, shows the impact of tax policy on government and economic growth. Her working papers include “A Narrative Analysis of Postwar Tax Changes,” “Do Tax Cuts Starve the Beast? The Effect of Tax Changes on Government Spending,” and “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.”

Read the full article →

Westfield Insurance Appoints Dr. Ghadar to Board of Directors

January 6, 2010

WESTFIELD CENTER, OH–(Marketwire – January 6, 2010) – Dr. Fariborz Ghadar was recently elected to the board of directors of Westfield Insurance, replacing Marty Murphy who retired this past November from the board. Dr. Ghadar is the William A. Schreyer Professor of Global Management, Policies and Planning, and Founding Director, Center for Global Business Studies at Penn State and Senior Advisor and Distinguished Senior Scholar at The Center for Strategic and International Studies. Earlier in his career, he served as an investment banker at the International Finance Corporation (World Bank), as well as research coordinator of the Harvard Multinational Enterprise Project. He also serves as a consultant to a score of major corporations, governments, and government agencies and regularly conducts programs for executives of major multinational corporations here and abroad. In addition, he also teaches in the executive education programs at Dartmouth, Duke, Carnegie Mellon and

Read the full article →

High CEO Pay May Correlate With Lower Long-Term Stock Value, According To Two Studies

December 31, 2009

The defenders of Wall Street pay usually rely on a rather familiar argument. It goes something like this: CEOs demand millions because they deliver profits, which are passed along to their shareholders. And, the argument goes, corporate executives who aren’t paid well will simply pack up and take their vaunted leadership skills somewhere else. (The argument has been a favorite of executives at near-failed companies like AIG.) But two recent studies suggest that lavish CEO compensation may in fact undermine shareholder wealth. In a study released last week , Raghavendra Rau and Huseyin Gulen of Purdue University and Michael J. Cooper of the University of Utah surveyed 1,500 companies that extended incentive compensation to their CEOs between 1994 and 2006, and examined whether pay correlated to stock performance. The researchers compared CEO pay across their data set and found that the 10 percent of companies with the most highly paid CEOs earned unusually low returns in both the near- and long-term. And the effects worsened over time: “The results are striking. In the year after the firms are classified into the lowest and highest compensation deciles respectively (column titled “(+1,+12)”), firms in the lowest total compensation decile earn insignificant industry- and momentum adjusted returns of -0.76%. In contrast, the firms in the highest compensation decile earn a highly significant -4.38%. The performance worsens significantly over time. In the five years after the classification period, firms in the high compensation decile earn a significant negative excess return of -12.27% while firms in the lowest compensation decile earn an insignificant 0.29%. The pattern is similar when we sort on either cash or incentive compensation separately.” For the companies whose CEOs earn the most in incentive compensation — defined as restricted stock and stock options — the returns were especially low. (This may not bode well for those Wall Street firms, like Goldman Sachs, who have taken to cutting down cash bonuses and boosting stock awards for execs.) As for an explanation of the findings, the authors speculated that when “over-confident managers” take oversize pay packages, “investors over-react to these pay grants and are subsequently disappointed.” A separate study led by Harvard Law’s Lucian Bebchuk investigated the relationship between future company performance and “CEO pay slice” (CPS) — the percentage of the total compensation for the top five executives that is allocated to the CEO alone. Bebchuk and his colleagues found a negative relationship between a higher CEO share of the executive compensation pot and firm value. Which is another way of saying that high CEO pay may actually hurt certain aspects of corporate performance: “CPS also has a rich set of relations with firms’ behavior and performance: in particular, CPS is correlated with (i) lower (industry-adjusted) accounting profitability, (ii) lower stock returns accompanying acquisitions announced by the firm and higher likelihood of a negative stock return accompanying such announcements, (iii) higher odds of the CEO’s receiving a “lucky” option grant at the lowest price of the month, (iv) greater tendency to reward the CEO for luck due to positive industry-wide shocks, (v) lower performance sensitivity of CEO turnover, (vi) lower firm-specific variability of stock returns over time, and (vii) lower stock market returns accompanying the filing of proxy statements for periods where CPS increases.” Read Professor Bebchuk’s study here . Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter !

Read the full article →

Joe Costello: Feminomics: Top Five Heroes of Financial Reform

December 30, 2009

From an economic standpoint, will 2010 be the year of the woman? As part of the Roosevelt Institute’s ongoing ‘Feminomics’ series, running on the New Deal 2.0 blog , I was asked to reflect on women’s changing roles in the economy. Here’s my take on how the New Deal advanced the cause of women’s equality. In case you haven’t heard, women are leading the charge on financial reform. In the spirit of celebrating their contributions, I’ve put together a list of the top five heroes of 2009, in the hopes that their work will inspire us in the coming year. So, channeling my best Wayne Newton (and I could pull this off if I shaved my goatee and took off the top 3/4 of my mustache), “This one’s for the ladies: ” 1) First, I’ll start with Yves Smith, who I came across end of last summer. She has 25 years in financial services, worked for, amongst others, Goldman, McKinsey, and Sumitomo, and is also a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Business School. Her must-read blog is Naked Capitalism . She has shown great knowledge and greater courage — and from my experience, these two traits are too rare together. Her writing is exceptional, and if you want a good overview of the financial mess and what’s gone on over the past year and half, I highly recommend paging through her blog’s archive. The president should replace Geithner with her. Time we had our first woman Treasury Secretary. 2) Next, Elizabeth Warren. Either mistakenly, which I believe is the case, or purposefully, in which case I’d have to reevaluate my opinion of Harry Reid, Warren was appointed by Reid to head the Congressional Oversight Panel for all the money being handed to the banks. Warren is Professor of Law at Harvard and wrote the excellent book The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke . So, she documented the great underbelly of Wall Street’s debt bubble — particularly its destruction of a big chunk of working America. I don’t know if Reid thought he was getting some doddering academic when he appointed her, but instead he got a strong and energetic public advocate. There’s been a pretty hard effort to discredit Ms. Warren, and Yves Smith takes a look at the hatchet job done by NPR here . I’ve been nothing but impressed when I’ve heard her talk, and strongly second the motion by William Greider to give her subpoena powers. 3) In October 2007, working for Oppenheimer, Meredith Whitney wrote a report calling Citi the pile junk it is. Amazingly, she was pretty much the only one in the whole industry to do so. Since then, Whitney has been straight at the big banks, holding nothing back on what bad shape they’re in. She’s the Anti-Geithner. In the middle of latest pop in the stock market, which has gotten the banks $50 billion in new capital over the past couple months, Whitney appeared on CNBC and called the banks’ profits “manufactured” by the government, and stated things would begin heading south again. She’s an eagle above the weasels scurrying below on Wall Street. 4) Gretchen Morgenson writes for the NYT business section. In the last year and half, she has written far and away some of the best coverage of the financial crisis in the mainstream media. Most importantly, she put Mr. Blankfein at the meeting with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke when the bailout of AIG was decided to the advantage of Goldman for at least 14 billion. Again, if you want to read some good things on the last year and half, scroll through her articles in the Times’ archive ( The Nation did an ok piece on her, but unfortunately, it suffers from the author’s “objective journalism” disease). 5) Finally, I’d throw in Sheila Bair, who was appointed head of the FDIC by none other than George W. Bush. Ms. Bair has frequently tangled with the boys in the government, taking on Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers. She’s stated repeatedly the banking crisis is not over , tried to slow the foreclosure tsunami, and most recently stated again Citi is a pile of crap and needs to be placed into receivership. These women are inspiring! Citizens all, helping to breathe life into this old republic. This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Murad Triples Size of Its Product Development Department

December 10, 2009

EL SEGUNDO, CA–(Marketwire – December 11, 2009) – Murad, Inc. announced it has tripled the size of its product development department to meet escalating demand for support functions sparked by the growing pipeline of innovative products created when Jeff Murad, Vice President of Product Development for Murad, joined the development team. Jeff Murad, son of Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCLA and company founder Howard Murad, M.D., will oversee the growth as he continues to manage the Product Development unit, working directly under his father.

Read the full article →

Jenny Darroch: It Is Time to Refocus on Education, R&D and Innovation If We Are to "Think Different" and Remain Competitive

December 9, 2009

I have often wondered what it takes for a dominant economy to fail as Spain did in the late 17th Century, France did in the late 18th Century, or the Ottoman Empire did in the mid-19th Century. Niall Ferguson, a Professor of History at Harvard University, provided great insights on this phenomenon in a recent Newsweek article in which he questioned the future of the US (December 7). The trends Professor Ferguson identified are frightening. He predicts that by 2039, federal debt held by the public will reach 91% of GDP, up from 41% in 2008 (he quotes an even more pessimistic forecast that puts debt at 215% of GDP by 2039). As Professor Ferguson notes, “This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.” So how can such staggering levels of debt be reduced? If households incur exorbitant levels of debt, short of declaring bankruptcy, they can cut expenses or increase income. Countries can do the same. For a government to increase its income it needs to either increase marginal tax rates or increase the tax base — that is, find ways to encourage economic growth so that people and organizations earn more and the tax on this additional income finds its way into government coffers. Innovation is critical to long-term economic growth. CNNMoney.com ran an article called “Driving change: innovation is key to the future of the US auto industry” (December 1). The central thesis of the article was that the US auto industry was at a crossroads. Consumers around the world are demanding “greater fuel efficiency and cutting edge design” and the question is whether US automakers can respond or whether the balance of power will move to other economies with emerging auto industries, such as India and Tata Motors. Steve Jobs’ advice to the US auto industry is to “think different.” The ability to “think different” is critical to the future success of many industries. To innovate as a way to generating growth within organizations can only help industries and the economy as a whole. Innovation requires inputs: money to support the development of ideas before the idea generates any revenue, a highly skilled labor force capable of working with cutting edge concepts and taking these ideas to market, an infrastructure to support the commercialization of ideas, and business conditions that encourage innovative organizations to stay in the US. It is easy to see how a recession fuels a downward spiral: demand falls, expenditure is cut, income falls, demand falls (again), etc. When looking at where governments and organizations make expenditure cuts, “safe bets” include R&D because cutting R&D expenditure does not have an immediate effect on consumer demand nor is R&D expenditure not tied to the immediate production of goods. Similarly, education budgets are cut, and in some States such as the State of California, cut drastically. The impact of a deteriorating education system has an even longer-term impact on innovation because it may take years to feel the effects of deterioration in the quality of knowledge workers, people who have the capacity to drive an innovative society. While I am not convinced we are completely out of the “recession woods” yet, I do believe the time has come to be more future-focused. In particular, it is time to focus on restoring expenditure in areas that will drive innovation and generate economic growth to such an extent that the income base expands and the level of debt does not eventually blow out to an unconscionable level. Jenny Darroch is on the faculty at the Drucker School of Management. She is an expert on marketing strategies that generate growth. See www.MarketingThroughTurbulentTimes.com

Read the full article →

Hildebrand Sets Sights on `Sacred Cows’ of Swiss Banking as SNB Job Looms

December 9, 2009

By Simone Meier and Klaus Wille Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Philipp Hildebrand , hedge fund manager turned central banker, is setting his sights on the dangers posed by UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group AG to the Swiss economy. Hildebrand, who takes the helm of the Swiss National Bank next month, is pushing what he calls a “no-more-taboos” stance after decades in which Switzerland’s banks were treated more with reverence than regulation. A year after the financial crisis forced a government bailout of UBS, the 46-year-old is signaling a willingness to be tougher than foreign counterparts and that he may go as far as to break up a bank if needed. “He doesn’t respect any sacred cows,” said Janwillem Acket , chief economist at Julius Baer Holding AG in Zurich, who has known Hildebrand since the 1990s. “His chances of succeeding are very good and should be taken even more seriously as SNB president. He’s got the ideal background, a strong personality and an excellent network.” Credit Suisse and UBS have assets six times the size of the economy, a source of unease for a country that relies on the perception of stability to attract wealthy investors. While banks have indicated they’ll fight any laws putting them at a disadvantage, Hildebrand has said that the size of the Swiss financial sector doesn’t only call for faster but also stricter rules in the Alpine nation. “We must accept that not all countries are confronted with the same urgency for reform as Switzerland,” Hildebrand said on Nov. 18. “Agreeing on an international common denominator of regulatory reform may turn out to be insufficient for the Swiss case.” Policy Meeting The SNB, which tomorrow holds its last policy meeting under President Jean-Pierre Roth before Hildebrand takes over on Jan. 1, will probably keep its key rate at 0.25 percent, according to all 16 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. The bank will release its decision at 9:30 a.m. in Zurich. Hildebrand, who previously worked for hedge fund company Moore Capital Management, also faces the challenge of withdrawing unprecedented stimulus measures without derailing an economic recovery from the worst slump in over thirty years or stoking inflation. As the economy recovers, the SNB may phase out its purchases of foreign currencies aimed to keep the franc from appreciating. “They’ll maintain their pragmatic stance,” said Alexander Krueger , head of capital-market analysis at Bankhaus Lampe KG in Dusseldorf, Germany. “They’ll wait and monitor economic developments while keeping an eye on the franc.” Outspoken Hildebrand, a former national swimming champion, has already used his authority to toughen regulation at home. In the weeks following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September 2008, he helped avert a near collapse of UBS and forced the country’s two largest banks to raise capital buffers. The central bank and the financial-market regulator work jointly on banking stability. As the crisis unfolded, Hildebrand has become the most outspoken advocate of more robust regulation to prevent a further crisis, stressing concerns about banks that are “too big to fail.” Still, regulators have yet to tackle this issue and Credit Suisse and UBS have voiced resistance. “The solution can only be a global one” and national approaches “are prone to have negative influences,” UBS Chief Executive Officer Oswald Gruebel said on Nov. 17. Hans-Ulrich Meister , head of Credit Suisse’s Swiss business, said two weeks later that regulators must “slow down” as other countries are just paying “lip service” to regulation. ‘Tooth and Nail’ “The drastic suggestions, such as for example the possible splitting up” of banks “will meet strong resistance,” said Manuel Ammann , a professor of finance at the University of St. Gallen. “They will fight against it tooth and nail.” Born in Bern, Switzerland, Hildebrand went to school in Zurich and studied in Toronto before getting a doctorate from the University of Oxford in 1994. He narrowly missed qualifying for the Swiss Olympic swimming team in 1984. “He was a real workhorse,” said Anthony Ulrich, Hildebrand’s former swimming coach. “We used to have training sessions at 6 a.m. and then again in the evening.” Even though he often went back to work after late training, “he never failed to show up the next day.” As a student, Hildebrand worked as an assistant to executives and policy makers at the World Economic Forum annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, where he is now a regular attendee. He joined Moore Capital in 1995, where he was first in charge of strategy for Europe and fixed income before being made partner in 1997. He was appointed chief investment officer at Vontobel Holding AG in Zurich in 2000 and joined Union Bancaire Privee the following year, where he led the investment strategy. “UBS and Credit Suisse would probably prefer to have Hildebrand on their own executive floor rather than at the head of the SNB,” says Hans Geiger , Professor Emeritus of Banking at the University of Zurich. “It would make their life a whole lot easier.” To contact the reporters on this story: Simone Meier in Zurich at smeier@bloomberg.net ; Klaus Wille in Zurich at kwille@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Does "Dr. Doom" Believe His Own Press?

November 24, 2009

I give great credit to NYU economics professor Nouriel Roubini. Unless you reside on another planet, you know that he correctly predicted the mortgage-related crash. Recently, “Dr. Doom” warned about a coming market correction. He believes “markets have gone up too much, too soon, too fast.” Should investors rely on Professor Roubini’s crystal ball? In its December 11, 2008 issue, Fortune Magazine featured a story entitled: “8 really, really scary predictions.” Titles that inspire fear and panic sell magazines. This fact is not lost on Fortune and others in the financial media. Here is Professor Roubini’s prediction for 2009: For the next 12 months I would stay away from risky assets. I would stay away from the stock market. I would stay away from commodities. I would stay away from credit, both high-yield and high-grade. I would stay in cash or cashlike instruments such as short-term or longer-term government bonds. It’s better to stay in things with low returns rather than to lose 50% of your wealth. You should preserve capital. It’ll be hard and challenging enough. I wish I could be more cheerful, but I was right a year ago, and I think I’ll be right this year too. Year to date, the S&P 500 is up 23.99%; the Dow is up 17.73% and the Nasdaq is up a whopping 36.76%. The S&P GSCI index, which benchmarks investment performance in the commodity markets, is up 11.65%. Industrial metals are up 68.87%. In stark contrast, 12 month U.S. Treasuries are yielding 0.26%. Longer term (10 year) Treasuries are yielding 3.37%. Clearly, Professor Roubini was right about 2008, but he was dead wrong about 2009. As I indicated in last week’s blog , his equally well credentialed colleague, Wharton professor and author, Jeremy Siegel, was shockingly wide of the mark with his 2008 stock market predictions. Of course, professors, economists and others have a right to make predictions. The financial media has every right to print them. The problem is that so many investors rely on them, when they are nothing more than voodoo science. That’s really, really scary! Dan Solin is the author of The Smartest Retirement Book You’ll Ever Read. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Ruth Sherman: What Artists Could Teach Goldman Sachs

November 21, 2009

School arts programs are again under assault, having, in many cases, never recovered from past cutbacks. At the same time, Goldman Sachs has image problems its chief, Lloyd Blankfein, did not anticipate, cannot identify with and continues to exacerbate. These matters are linked; one begets the other. In recent decades, the educational establishment, with the support and succor of government and business, has toiled to develop a curriculum that produces “leaders” or at least a capable workforce. Academic subjects reign, while arts programs of all kinds have been decimated. But there is much business can learn through the arts about thinking and even moral reasoning. Teamwork, cooperation and appreciation for the different talents and strengths others bring are inherent in arts education. Creativity and flexibility of thought are de rigueur. These are the so-called “intangibles” businesses find so difficult if not impossible to measure, particularly that qualitative evaluation can be as valid as quantitative evaluation: What is the best medium to use? When is a project complete? Is the work good? How do we know if there are no rules for judging it or answer key? The arts teach us how to judge in the absence of “rules” through the use of emotion and self-reflection, exactly what’s been missing from Goldman’s public communications. When the company announced it would dispense bigger bonuses this year than ever before, despite what continues to be a deeply painful economic time for most people, it sent a signal that it is not a member of the greater community, or at least uninterested in serving the greater social good. This is a missed opportunity for Goldman and a loss to the community. Furthermore, and to the point of this blog, it displayed a lack of ability to think and reflect with flexibility and creativity, precisely the type of thinking that is so desperately needed to deal with our current crises. Stanford Emeritus Professor of Education, Elliot W. Eisner, one of the great thinkers, teachers and writers about the place of the arts in education, states : “The arts teach students to act and to judge in the absence of rule, to rely on feel, to pay attention to nuance, to act and appraise the consequences of one’s choices and to revise and then to make other choices. Getting these relationships right requires what Nelson Goodman calls ‘rightness of fit.’ Artists and all who work with the composition of qualities try to achieve a “rightness of fit.”(1) And, “[Artistic] forms of thought integrate feeling and thinking in ways that make them inseparable. One knows one is right because one feels the relationships… Another way of putting it is that as we learn in and through the arts we become more qualitatively intelligent.”(1) Goldman and its leaders seem not to be able to “feel the relationships” it has with the public at large. Qualitative intelligence eludes them. This is no surprise considering the powerful message the educational establishment has been sending for many years about what matters and what doesn’t. For example, arts courses count for only a fraction of the credits that accumulate toward graduation. They take distant second or third place to other curricula, are relegated to extra-curricular activities, or delivered privately, if parents can afford it. And very significantly, standardized tests, which drive educational programming, do not include the arts. Impressionable young minds quickly crack this code: Some pursuits are not worthwhile. After decades of inculcation by the education system, Goldman and its leadership (among other businesses and government agencies) are unable to reflect beyond the quantitative, cold calculation of monetary profit and loss. The result is an inability to “read the room,” and adjust accordingly, much as artists adjust tone, color or timbre. Considering how something looks, how information is conveyed and what people will think as a result, are the social mechanisms we use to measure how a behavior will be received by the larger community in which we all reside. As such, they are tools to make better choices and decisions. As Goldman Sachs may be discovering, belatedly and to its chagrin — and as the arts teach — image matters. Perception is reality. Therefore, if we want business and government to do better by us, we need more arts education, not less. As Professor Eisner eloquently writes , “”The problems of life are much more like the problems encountered in the arts… One would think that schools that wanted to prepare students for life would employ tasks and problems similar to those found outside of schools. This is hardly the case. Life outside of school is seldom like school assignments–and hardly ever like a multiple-choice test.”(2) (1) Eisner, Elliot W. “What Can Education Learn From the Arts About the Practice of Education?” Encyclopaedia of informal Education (Infed), Originally given as the John Dewey Lecture for 2002 at Stanford Univerisity. http://www.infed.org/biblio/eisner_arts_and_the_practice_of_education.htm#edn9 (2) Eisner, Elliot W. “Three Rs Are Essential, but Don’t Forget the A — the Arts” Los Angeles Times, January 3, 2005 Commentary http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/03/opinion/oe-eisner3 Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook Connect with me on LinkedIn

Read the full article →

John Hope Bryant: The Dawning Of The Post-Crisis Entrepreneurship Generation, Here And All Around The World

November 21, 2009

From civil rights to silver rights. In my new book LOVE LEADERSHIP: The New Way to Lead in a Fear-Based World, I submit that there are two things in the world, love and fear, and that what we don’t love what we fear. Further, I submit that the reason our world is so screwed up today is that most of our so-called leaders have led by fear. I go on to say that close relatives of fear are shorter-ism, laziness, greed, a focus on me and not we, and asking the question, “what do I get,” versus “what do I have to give.” One could say that this current crisis has morphed from a global financial crisis, into an economic crisis, a liquidity crisis, and today it is a global crisis of confidence, and in this environment the ultimate prosperity killer is fear. Adding insult to injury, as I have also said in Love Leadership and several articles for major publications since its publication, this is not so much a recession but “a reset.” In other words, this is not over by a long-shot, and unfortunately, things are likely to get worse before they get any better. Buckle up. But not all news is bad news, and as I note repeatedly in Love Leadership, “you cannot have a rainbow without a storm first.” Not so long ago the Financial Times had estimated that approximately 50 million jobs would be lost as a result of this global economic crisis. I believe that estimation is inaccurate only inasmuch as the job-loss number is respectfully, too low. More than 27 million jobs have already been lost in China alone, and the U.S. unemployment numbers do not take into account the millions who are either significantly under-employed or who have stopped looking for jobs altogether. And certainly the 10% unemployment estimates do not even begin to address the millions who were in a jobless economic crisis in America’s inner-cities, the places served by the organization I founded, Operation HOPE, even before this crisis hit. When mainstream America has a headache, minority America tends to get pneumonia, but we are all in this together. Jobs here in the U.S. and the Western World Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has already said that even with sustained economic growth (GDP) of 3.5% over two years, this is still not enough to move unemployment below 9% (which in my mind means real sustained unemployment of 15% in many places, and well above 25% in America’s inner city and under-served communities). Translation: corporate jobs are not going to save us. In fact, I believe there is going to be a net contraction of corporate jobs over the next 12-24 months. Jobs in the Middle East Credible reports have estimated a need of approximately 100 million jobs in the Middle East within the next decade, for a (Middle East) population that will be 60% under the age of 25. Talk about a national security threat in the world; there is nothing more dangerous than a person without hope, skills, opportunity, nor the dignity of doing for self. Going further, the number one recruiting tool for the Taliban is not ideology or religion, it’s money. Corporate jobs are not going to save the Middle East either, and if you follow this line of thinking, the rest of the world by extension. Jobs in India Even before the crisis, informal work outnumbered traditional jobs by almost 20 to 1 in India. I believe that this is more or less the case as well in most of Asia, Latin America, and Africa too. Hope on the horizon Before I spoke at the closing session of the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland earlier this year on “Dignity for All,” on a panel discussion with Archbishop-Emeritus Desmond Tutu, World Economic Forum Chairman and founder Professor Klaus Schwab, and my fellow Global Dignity co-founders and Young Global Leaders, HRH Crown Prince Haakon of Norway and Professor Pekka Himanen, I approached a group of young Africans and asked them how this global crisis was going to impact them. Their response inspired me, and should inspire you too. They said, “John, some mainstream leaders, only used to a culture of prosperity, seems to be like an orchid in a hot house; requiring near perfect conditions in order to thrive. But we Africans, we are sort of like weeds — we grow ANYWHERE!” And there my friends, is the seed of our collection solution, no pun intended. Learning how to “hustle” with a purpose, and to work again. I believe that the solution to our collective problem, from the United States to the United Arab Emirates to the poor ethnic suburbs of the UK and beyond, is the spark and nurturing of a generation of young entrepreneurs and self-employment projects the world over. The only thing keeping us from achieving just this over the next two decades is fear. Fear is the ultimate prosperity killer, but prosperity itself is the best partner to peace, and the ultimate prosperity agenda — a global silver rights movement that teaches the financially poor and under-served the language of money, that cracks the code of free enterprise and capitalism, and inspires individuals to become entrepreneurs — is love leadership is action. I am reminded of a story that my personal hero and mentor, civil rights icon Ambassador Andrew Young told me recounting his trip to Israel with his friend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. along with Dr. King’s wife Coretta King. Dr. King had just returned from a tour of the fabled Jericho Road, when a reporter said “Dr. King, you remind me of the Good Samaritan on the Jericho Road.” To this comment, Dr. King replied nothing. Later that day, Andrew Young asked Dr. King why he had not responded. Dr. King said “Andy, I like the Good Samaritan, I love the Good Samaritan, and we need more Good Samaritans, but I don’t want to be a Good Samaritan. ” Dr. King continued, “Andy, I have been on that Jericho Road (described in the Bible), and it goes from 2,000 feet below sea level to almost the same above sea level in 20 minutes. It has blind corners, and people laying in wait. It’s a dangerous road. But most of all Andy, I am tired of seeing my people, sitting in a ditch beside that road, looking like victims, and with no options in their lives.” Dr. King concluded, “….Andy, I want to fix the Jericho Road. I want to see street lights up along the Jericho Road. I want to see community development and small business along the Jericho Road. Andy, I want to fix the Jericho Roads of our world.” I am with Dr. King, who was himself a bit of a social entrepreneur too. Closer to home, I am also reminded of a young dreamer named Ryan Taylor, who came into my office years ago while in his late 20′s, with a dream of becoming a clothier. He had no formal experience or training, and no mainline design or clothing house would hire him, but Ryan was passionate and would not give up, or give in. Ryan convinced me to compel our banking partners to invest in him. Like many start-up entrepreneurs who want to be shot out of a cannon, initially Ryan would not listen, and he quickly lost the $10,000 loan we extended to him. But after that Ryan Taylor was a new and humble man, and took his time to undergo our financial literacy and entrepreneurship training programs at Operation HOPE. When he finished his coursework we once again encouraged one of our partners to trust Ryan with a $35,000 loan (having committed to simultaneously repay the $10,000 loan on terms as well). Fast forward 8 years later, and Ryan Taylor is CEO of a clothing company called DROBE, Inc. (www.drobe.com), which grosses more than $600,000 annually, has six full-time employees on the payroll, Ryan is paying his taxes and raising his children, and he has even started his own nonprofit organization to show other kids in the inner-city of Los Angeles how to be dreamers too. Ryan Taylor is a vision for America and the world’s future generation of dreamers made real, and he is helping me and my mentors Quincy Jones and Ambassador Andrew Young to “make smart sexy again” (www.5mk.org). In the backdrop of this global economic crisis, we need to see what lies ahead not as a problem to be dreaded, but very much like the visionaries did following the Great Depression; as an opportunity for real and sustainable change, and for finally making free enterprise and capitalism actually work for the poor. We need to get “our story line” back, and to finally see ourselves as true interconnected global citizens, bound up together in a “mutual destiny.” I believe that the next 30 years will be the most amazing in modern history, but we have to make it that way. If we don’t, if instead we stand stuck and stymied by fear, small ideas and indecision, then what lies ahead will only serve as the set up for 100 years of pure pain passed down to generations yet unborn. We have become experts at what we are against, but now we must once again become experts in what we are for. Rainbows, after storms. John Hope Bryant is the founder, chairman and CEO of Operation HOPE, vice chairman of the U.S. President’s Advisory Council on Financial Literacy as well as chairman of the Council Committee on the Under-Served, financial literacy advisor to the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council, a Young Global Leaders for the World Economic Forum, and author of LOVE LEADERSHIP; A New Way to Lead in a Fear-Based World (Jossey-Bass), which debuted in August, 2009, on the CEO Reads Top 10 Best Seller List.

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren Winning Means Banks Won’t Sell When They Can’t Explain It

November 19, 2009

By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) — In Elizabeth Warren’s world, credit card contracts would be so simple a teenager could read and understand them in four minutes. Loans would be as easy to compare as toasters, and online credit scores would be free. “We need a new model: If you can’t explain it, you can’t sell it,” said Warren, 60, a Harvard University law professor who is head of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program , in an interview. The 1966 high school debate champion of Oklahoma may get what she wants. The House of Representatives will vote in December on her idea . She suggested a Financial Product Safety Commission in a 2007 article in the magazine Democracy. President Barack Obama proposed it to Congress in June as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Warren won’t discuss whether she may be a candidate to lead the authority, which would have the power to regulate $13.7 trillion of debt products. A Warren nomination would tell banks that Obama is determined to force reduced checking-account fees and limit lender claims in mortgage advertising, among other measures the industry opposes, said Thomas Cooley , dean of New York University’s Stern School of Business. “She is an ideological crusader,” Cooley said in an interview. “She is a person who will stir up a lot of trouble.” In a column in Forbes magazine, Cooley accused her of “waging a self-righteous holy war.” The criticism doesn’t bother her, Warren said. She learned to shake things off growing up in Norman , Oklahoma, with three older brothers “in a family of car parts and fist fights,” she said. “It was get tough or die, and I decided to get tough.” Coors Light Her detractors confuse prairie-born populism with elitism, probably because of her job, she said. On the faculty of Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard since 1992, she is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law . Before Harvard, she taught law at five other universities in four states. “Those comments are intended to be nasty, not accurate,” said Warren, who graduated from high school at 16 and said she prefers Coors Light beer over iced tea. “I think a lot of Americans are not sure which side Washington is on, the side of banks or the side of the people.” Warren is a superstar to anyone who has been baffled by financial fine print, according to Arianna Huffington , editor- in-chief of the Huffington Post , a news and opinion Web site. “She’s been courageous in a culture where every other official is checking to see if what they’re saying is going to affect their career,” said Huffington, who met Warren when the professor was a guest on CNBC’s “ Squawk Box ” and Huffington was hosting. “If she doesn’t get the job, it would really mean that the special interests have won.” Freedom of Choice A measure the House Financial Services Committee approved on Oct. 22 would empower the consumer agency to set limits on checking account overdraft fees and to ban credit cards with escalating rates and lending practices it deems predatory. Similar legislation is before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. If such an authority had existed, Americans might not have taken out the subprime and other mortgages that touched off the recession when house prices fell, Warren said. Congress is rewriting financial rules after the 2007-2008 crisis caused $1.67 trillion in writedowns and losses. The agency’s opponents, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association and the Financial Services Roundtable , contend another layer of regulation would bury small community banks and rob consumers of freedom of choice in making basic financial decisions. ‘Pitchforks and Torches’ “It is positively Orwellian that, through this legislation, Democrats will empower an unelected bureaucrat to tell their fellow citizens whether or not they can fly on an airplane, take a vacation or purchase a home,” Representative Jeb Hensarling , a Texas Republican on Warren’s TARP panel, said Oct. 22. He declined through his spokesman, George Rasley, to be interviewed for this story. If Congress creates the watchdog, the director should have “a working knowledge of how financial institutions operate,” said Scott Talbott , the financial roundtable’s chief lobbyist. “The time for pitchforks and torches is over,” Talbott said in an interview. “The focus should be on reforming the system and making it better.” Warren’s Wall Street experience consisted of a three-month summer associate position in 1975 at Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft , the financial district’s oldest law firm, according to its Web site. Her aunt and mother moved to Rockaway, New Jersey, to care for her 4-year-old daughter while Warren worked at 2 Wall Street. At first, she said she thought she was being made fun of as a rookie from the sticks. Pork Bellies “I got out my little notebook, and the senior partner started talking about frozen pork belly futures,” Warren said, recalling an early meeting. “How dumb do they think I am? I wasn’t going to fall for it because I am a sophisticated person. It finally occurs to me that he is serious, and that there is a market for pork bellies.” At Cadwalader she earned “an astonishing amount of money” that she used to get braces, she said. By the time she received her degree in 1976 from Rutgers School of Law in Newark, New Jersey, she was expecting her second child, Alex. After Wall Street firms showed no interest in hiring a pregnant recent graduate, Warren said she worked from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings for “anyone who came in the door.” “At Cadwalader, I did a $9 million fifth mortgage on a ship,” she said. “In private practice, I worked for a couple starting a little business who had to negotiate some insurance contracts for about $18,000, but it mattered more to them than that ship mortgage mattered to anyone.” Trusting FDR Warren said she probably inherited her populism from her grandparents, who built one-room Indian schools during the Great Depression. While they didn’t understand the financial world, they knew President Franklin D. Roosevelt made their money safe by establishing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. , she said. There was little cash to spare during her childhood, she said. Her father was a maintenance man and her mother worked part-time taking catalog orders. Warren didn’t let them know she paid $25 application fees with baby-sitting money until she won a scholarship to George Washington University in Washington. “Then, I could tell them I could go to college,” she said, “and someone else would pay for it.” Warren began at George Washington at 17. At 19, she married mathematician Jim Warren, who worked at the Johnson Space Center in Houston , and finished her degree at the University of Houston. They divorced in 1978. Her second husband, Bruce Mann, is Harvard’s Carl F. Schipper Professor of Law and author of 2002’s “Republic of Debtors: Bankruptcy in the Age of American Independence” (Harvard University Press, 358 pages, $29.95). Credit Card Snakes Warren said she doesn’t know her credit score — “I assume it’s good” — and maintains zero Visa and MasterCard balances. “Credit cards are like snakes: Handle ‘em long enough and one will bite you,’’ she said. ‘‘You have to remember what are incomes to banks are outgoes to families.’’ Obama, with whom she attended a campaign event during the presidential race, read her work before proposing the consumer agency, according to Warren. She is the author of nine books, including two with daughter Amelia Tyagi, 38, a former McKinsey & Co. consultant who runs an executive placement office. Tyagi and her mother wrote ‘‘The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke’’ (Basic Books, 255 pages, $26) in 2003 and ‘‘All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan’’ in 2005 (Free Press, 289 pages, $24.95). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , a Nevada Democrat, appointed Warren to the five-member TARP committee after she impressed him with her ‘‘strong pro-consumer views,’’ according to Jim Manley , Reid’s spokesman. Not Always Mainstream Warren, who began testifying before Congress more than a decade ago, wasn’t always accepted as a mainstream figure in Washington, said Representative Brad Miller , a North Carolina Democrat. He introduced a bill to create a Financial Product Safety Commission in 2007, and it went nowhere because consumers’ rights weren’t recognized as significant, he said. ‘‘It’s now a very serious proposal,” Miller said in an interview. “If it were not for her, I don’t think it would have gotten this much support. She knew what was important, what was necessary and what would help the bill get through,” Barney Frank , chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called Warren a “great partner” in crafting the legislation. The Massachusetts Democrat said he speaks with her by phone twice a week. In her role overseeing the TARP, Warren has been critical of the administration, accusing the Treasury Department of undervaluing the stock warrants that were supposed to compensate taxpayers when banks repay their bailouts. A lack of transparency about how TARP functions “erodes the very confidence” it was to restore, her committee said in a report. Odd Hours Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner declined to comment for this story through his spokesman, Andrew Williams . Named in May as one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World , Warren teaches three days a week at Harvard, flying to Washington and New York for meetings, sometimes stopping just long enough to charge her laptop. She keeps a pace few could maintain, Miller said. “My last e-mail from her one Saturday night was after 11 p.m. and the first one on Sunday morning came before 7 a.m.,” he said. “It made me think she keeps some odd hours.” Warren travels to Los Angeles, where her son and daughter live, about every six weeks. She said she was there to share Halloween with her grandchildren, Octavia, 8, and Lavinia, 4, dressed as a sheep to complement Lavinia’s Bo Peep costume. Not Obama Country Her students suggested she be a guest on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ” on Comedy Central, she said. She was also interviewed by Michael Moore for his documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” in which she makes a one-minute appearance in a segment about TARP. She’ll “talk to anyone” about consumer protection and her belief that government should stop bank profits earned at the expense of people cheated by “tricks and traps,” she said. “I made a decision at the beginning that the experts wrecked this economy and the public has a right to know what’s going on,” she said. “It’s our economy on the line and the experts can’t be trusted. I want everyone to be part of the solution to how we want to change our economic world. If it’s risky or makes me look stupid to someone, so be it.” Warren, whose TARP job paid her $114,733.04 through Sept. 30, has a high profile the White House should appreciate, said Damon Silvers , an oversight panel member, in an interview. “We were out in Colorado at a hearing for rural finance and people came up to her,” Silvers said. “That wasn’t exactly Obama country out there, if you know what I mean.” Warren reflects Obama’s belief in the good that government can do, said Howard Marks , chairman of Oaktree Capital Management LLC in Los Angeles, who said he met Warren when Huffington brought her to a dinner at his house. “We found out over the last eight years what kind of regulation you get from an administration that doesn’t believe in regulation,” said Marks, whose firm has about $67 billion in assets under management. “Now we’ll find out what oversight we will have from people who do.” To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net ; Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: False Prophets, Big Bucks

November 17, 2009

Jeremy Siegel Ph.D. has very impressive credentials. He is the Russell E. Palmer Professor of Finance at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of a number of financial books, including Stocks for the Long Run . Professor Siegel has become a cottage industry. His web site refers to him as the “Wizard of Wharton” and offers subscriptions so that readers can benefit from his market newsletter and “investment strategies.” His stock market skills are extolled by no less an expert than Jim Cramer, who wrote that “Jeremy Siegel is one of the great ones. [His article at the market top was] one of the most stark and prescient calls I have ever seen.” Of course, Cramer said the same thing about Lenny Dykstra, who he also called “one of the great ones in this business”. Dykstra recently filed for bankruptcy, declaring assets of $50,000 and debts of $30 million. But I digress. Professor Siegel makes end of the year predictions about the performance of the stock markets. When he did so at the end of 2007, with his predictions for 2008, I wrote a blog warning investors not to rely on his predictions. I noted that we all wish there was a guru out there who could see the future but that these claims were “… a disservice to investors when those who should know better foster this false hope.” How accurate were Professor Siegel’s 2008 predictions ? Professor Siegel predicted that “…the economy will avoid a recession” in 2008. His crystal ball also revealed that “the stock market will have another winning year in 2008″ and that “financial stocks, which have plummeted 18% so far this year, will outperform the S&P 500 index next year [2008] as the credit crises fades.” The recession of 2008 was the worst since the Great Depression. The S&P 500 lost 38.49% in 2008. It was its worst year since 1937. Financials underperformed all market sectors, losing 56.95%. I am not picking on Professor Siegel. His predictions are no better or worse than many others. The securities industry and the financial media inundate investors with market predictions. The reality is that they have no value, whether they are delivered by a carnival barker like Cramer or a well credentialed academic like Professor Siegel. Dan Solin is the author of The Smartest Retirement Book You’ll Ever Read. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

London’s `New Era’ of Air Pollution From Diesel Threatens Olympics in 2012

November 16, 2009

By Brian Lysaght Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) — London, which has some of Europe’s worst air pollution, may have to ban cars and reschedule events during the 2012 Olympics to ensure optimum conditions for athletes, a leading air-quality scientist said. The U.K. capital is in a “new era” of air pollution, mostly caused by emissions from diesel-powered cars, vans and buses, said Professor Frank Kelly, director of the King’s College Environmental Research Group . The city of 7.5 million residents has the worst record for nitrogen dioxide pollutants among European capitals and one of the worst for dangerous airborne particles. Politicians including Mayor Boris Johnson aren’t doing enough to cleanse the air, Kelly said. Beijing last year and Athens in 2004 struggled with air pollution during the games. “Whether we get a few months of good air quality during the Olympics — it will be totally in the hands of the gods, it will depend on weather conditions,” Kelly said in a Nov. 11 interview. Organizers may have to limit traffic, reschedule events to a time of day with better air quality or move them to less polluted sites, he said. The U.K. is spending 9.3 billion pounds ($16 billion) on construction for the games, one of Europe’s largest building projects. It includes the main Olympic Park in east London. Organizers expect 14,000 athletes to attend, along with 20,000 members of the media, and may sell 9 million tickets. ‘Rain-Dispersal’ China spent $17 billion on cleaning the air, including firing “rain-dispersal rockets” at clouds, removing two-thirds of Beijing’s 3.3 million cars from the road for two months and shutting factories. It won plaudits as weather conditions improved. London’s dirty air, though less serious than Beijing’s, dates to medieval times, when soft sea-coal was burned in homes, breweries and factories, according to “The Big Smoke,” author Peter Brimblecombe’s book on air pollution. King Edward I tried unsuccessfully to ban the high-sulfur fuel in 1306. In 1661, London diarist John Evelyn observed that the city was covered “in such a cloud of sea-coal, as if there be a resemblance of hell upon earth.” In 1879, a coal-smoke saturated fog hovered over London for four months, and another in December 1952 was blamed for as many as 4,000 deaths. Parliament passed the Clean Air Act in 1956, and natural gas replaced coal in most homes, eliminating the city’s so- called “pea soup” fogs. Diesel Sales The popularity of diesel-powered vehicles has boosted airborne particulates, said Kelly, whose Environmental Research Group operates 160 monitoring sites around the city and analyzes the data for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs . Sales of diesel-powered cars made up 43 percent of Britain’s sales last year, compared with 14 percent in 2000, according to the U.K. Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders . Diesel engines are generally more fuel efficient than gasoline models. They produce a type of particle, known as PM10, which can hamper breathing. Factories, construction sites and wind-blown material from other countries also contribute. Particulate concentrations have increased 0.4 percent a year in London since the late 1990s, according to King’s, a University of London college. EU rules require an average of no more than 40 micrograms of PM10s per cubic meter of air and a daily level of 50 micrograms may not be exceeded more than 35 times annually. Greater London had an average of 43.3 micrograms in 2007, and exceeded 50 micrograms on 102 occasions, according to DEFRA. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government has asked the EU for more time to meet the particulates and nitrogen dioxide targets. ‘Country Mile’ London’s nitrogen dioxide levels exceed EU rules by “a country mile,” said Gary Fuller, an air-quality expert at King’s. The pollutant is a product of burning fuel by vehicles, aircraft, power stations and heating systems. Some inner London roadside locations exceed the limits by a factor of two, according to the mayor’s draft Air Quality Strategy . The city estimates that 2.3 million residents were exposed to excessive nitrogen dioxide levels in 2006. London air pollution contributes to as many as 3,000 premature deaths a year, the city’s legislative assembly said in a May report . Johnson, who is a member of the Olympic Board that oversees games planning, has reversed some of predecessor Ken Livingstone’s anti-pollution programs. He is scrapping the western section of the congestion-charge zone that requires drivers to pay an 8-pound daily entry fee. Banning Taxis He postponed an extension of a low-emission zone that fines the owners of the dirtiest heavy trucks to include smaller vans, saying the rules would be too costly for small businesses during the recession. The mayor’s clean-air plans include buses powered by diesel-electric hybrid engines, banning older taxis and upgrading public transportation. His office said Nov. 12 that “the smooth running of London’s Olympic games will not be affected by poor air quality.” London’s PM10 levels will fall by 25 percent by the time the games begin, Johnson said. Kelly is skeptical. “If we have heavy cloud cover and very little wind, we’re going to get pollution episodes and everybody will say, ‘Why didn’t we do more to improve air quality in London?’” said Kelly. To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Lysaght in London at blysaght@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Ann Pettifor: Investors: beware the quackery of economic goats, whitewashers and charlatans.

November 11, 2009

In William Hogarth’s famous engraving of 1721, the world of finance, corrupted by the phantom of the South Sea Bubble, is cruelly satirised. To represent market cheerleaders, a goat sits astride a spinning carousel and asks: ‘who will ride?” Lured by this charlatan, investors crowd on to the shaky, but thrilling merry-go-round. In another corner a winged devil with a scythe throws chunks of Fortune’s body to a greedy crowd. And in the right hand corner – ‘trade lies dead’. Today – as global trade lies dead, as unemployment rises, as wages and incomes plummet, as US consumption (70% of US GDP) and investment falls – share prices zoom upwards and commodity prices rock. According to Fortune magazine, the stock market climb of these last few months is the fastest on record. By November, the S&P 500 had surged by 62 percent to 1,093.08 after sinking to a 12-year low in March. A trade that remains in the shadows – ‘the carry trade’ – roars ahead. (For the uninitiated: it’s just another version of ‘buying cheap and selling high’. Traders in money borrow e.g. dollars, at the Federal Funds rate of 0.25%- and then lend in countries (and currencies) where rates (or yields) are higher. Nice work if you can get it – especially as a banker, with the competition wiped out, the Fed keeping interest rates low, and the risk of gambling with your own capital replaced by taxpayer-backed money. It’s especially nice work if, while playing away, you can short the dollar and so ensure that on returning home to pay your dollar debts, the rate is lower. Fine and dandy of course, until either the dollar or the Fed rate rises. Then all hell will break loose, as traders scramble to repay debts at climbing rates. But until then, the unregulated ‘carry trade’ carousel will keep spinning round the globe.) In another corner of the financial forest, and partly financed by the carry trade, the global bubble in equities, commodities and other risky assets is expanding into what Nouriel Roubini calls a ‘ monster ‘. Many economists are helping to pump it up further. Some, like Abby Joseph Cohen at Goldman Sachs gave the bubble a puff by declaring the recession at an end in August. Jim O’Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs is a perma-optimist. He told me in an August 2008 BBC radio interview that this recession was ‘just another periodic crisis – I have already lived through five’, he remarked. When a British economist Danny Gabay of Fathom Financial Consulting argued that poor GDP numbers could be explained by the fact that “the UK has some formidable headwinds, not least of which is the over-burdened consumer which is having to cope with a broken banking system, rising unemployment, and falling income growth,” his view was dismissed as “baloney” by Kevin Daly at Goldman Sachs, who, according to the FT , put greater weight on more optimistic recent surveys of companies. These happy (and well-compensated) souls are joined by PhD-trained academic economists who cheered the recent 3.5% growth in US GDP, even though wiser heads declared this analysis a whitewash, and noted that ‘cash for clunkers accounted for 1.7%, i.e. half of the increase and the lower liquidation of goods in stock accounted for another 1%. In other words, 80% of this “growth” came from a temporary government boost that is already gone or was essentially technical in nature.’ But the cheerleader that investors should most beware of is one Prof. Frederick Mishkin. In May, 2006, this American economist and one-time Federal Reserve governor, wrote a report called “Financial Stability in Iceland” commissioned by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce. (See ‘ Iceland as Icarus ‘ by Prof. Robert Wade.) In this report he and his Icelandic partner opined thus: “Although Iceland’s economy does have imbalances that will eventually be reversed, financial fragility is not high and the likelihood of a financial meltdown is very low”. We know that Fred Mishkin (now of Columbia University) was not the only academic economist to act as cheerleader for Iceland’s reckless bankers. Prof. Richard Portes, President of Britain’s Royal Economic Society, played a similar role. (For more about Professor Portes’s role in the Icelandic saga, go here .) Mishkin’s report was published in the same month that the IMF mission to Iceland came to very different conclusions. According to Prof. Wade, Mishkin “pocketed $135,000 for his contribution to the modest report.” A modest fee, we might add, for puffing up massive capital gains on behalf of reckless Icelandic bankers. In the autumn of 2009 Iceland’s economy ‘debtonated’ and the country was quickly bankrupted. Bank failures, unemployment, political upheaval and massive destruction of value followed. The disastrous bursting of the bubble created by Iceland’s bankers, has not punctured the Professor’s confidence, nor deterred his sponsors at the Financial Times or in the banking sector. On Tuesday, 10th November, 2009, Mishkin was given a column in the FT. The apparent purpose of the piece is to debate the risk of bubbles. Instead emphatically puffs up the ‘monster bubble’ in risky assets. He does so by posing a rhetorical question: “if bubbles are a possibility now, does it look like they are of the dangerous, credit boom variety?” “The answer” writes this academic purveyor of advice and encouragement to the carousel set, “at least in the US and Europe, is clearly no.” To paraphrase Wordsworth: William Hogarth, thou shouldst be living at this hour: Economics hath need of thee: she is a fen of stagnant waters.

Read the full article →

Short-Selling (VIDEO): Did It Contribute To The Market’s Collapse?

November 2, 2009

Let’s get our bearings here. What is short-selling? NYU Professor of Finance Steven Figlewski can explain: “You sell the stock with the expectation, the intention, that you’re going to buy the stock later. And in order to sell the stock, since you don’t own it, you’ve got to borrow it from somebody.” The short seller intends to profit from the decline in price between the sale and repurchase. Why do we care about all this market talk? Short-selling is not a new concept, dating back to the 1600s, and playing a part in the 1929 and 1987 crashes. Now, some experts are saying that “shorting” the market contributed in part to the latest global financial crisis, as “it can undermine investor confidence and … in extreme cases, cause a run on a company’s share price.” Yikes. However, just to make it a little more confusing, some bankers think the complete opposite, saying it “enhances liquidity and pricing efficiency in the markets.” So who do you believe? WATCH CNN ‘s look into short-selling:

Read the full article →

Madoff Investors Sue SEC for Failing to Catch Con Man’s $65 Billion Scheme

October 14, 2009

By Erik Larson Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Two of Bernard Madoff’s victims sued the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for failing to uncover the con man’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme, in a case that could trigger a wave of lawsuits if it isn’t dismissed. The government’s “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits should be waived under a law that permits cases against the U.S. if its workers were negligent, according to a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court seeking the return of $2.4 million. Through a “pattern of incompetence,” the SEC missed at least six opportunities to uncover Madoff’s fraud even after receiving detailed tips from an expert explaining how Madoff’s high returns and mysterious investment strategy were proof of the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme, according to the complaint. “Had the SEC carried out its functions with even a minimum of reasonable due care, many, if not most, of Madoff’s victims would have been spared the financial ruin they face today,” the two New York investors said in their 63-page complaint. The lawsuit was filed by Phyllis Molchatsky , a disabled retiree and single mother who lost $1.7 million, and Steven Schneider, a doctor who lost almost $753,000. The SEC earlier denied the investors’ administrative claims, clearing the way for them to file today’s suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Acted ‘Unreasonably’ The investors are represented by Howard Elisofon , a lawyer with Herrick, Feinstein LLP in New York. The firm filed seven additional administrative claims with the SEC, which could lead to a new round of lawsuits if they’re denied. “I don’t think the suit is likely to win,” Professor Peter Henning of Wayne State University Law School said in a phone interview. “They have to show the SEC was negligent, that it acted unreasonably.” As a law enforcement agency, it’s up to the SEC to decide where to commit its resources, he said. Henning said the lawsuit, if it succeeded, would expose the government to thousands of lawsuits and “massive liabilities” in the Madoff case and any other fraud that the SEC failed to stop. “That’s why courts are generally reluctant to let these cases go very far,” Henning said. Difficult to Succeed Professor Paul Figley of American University’s Washington College of Law also said the lawsuit isn’t likely to succeed. “There have been a lot of tort suits that have been filed against the government over the years that have succeeded, but none that had to do with the government failing to catch and prosecute a criminal,” Figley said. SEC spokesman John Heine didn’t immediately provide a comment when reached by phone. Many lawsuits filed under the statute fail because of a provision that protects the U.S. when the disputed acts are so- called discretionary functions, the professors said. The investors say that won’t protect the SEC in this case. “The SEC cannot evade accountability with a shield of immunity that is designed to be reserved for policy decisions,” the investors said in the complaint. The complaint against the SEC follows earlier suits by victims against banks and other third parties that did business with Madoff, accusing them of failing to conduct due diligence when placing investor money with Madoff, or with firms that directed money to the con man. “Plaintiffs relied on the SEC to protect them and, instead, time after time, the SEC’s agents looked the other way, allowing an obvious danger to grow exponentially, until massive injuries to the plaintiffs and other Madoff investors became inevitable,” according to the complaint. The SEC, already faulted by Congress for missing the scheme, has been busy trying to restore faith in its abilities after an internal report released last month outlined its failures in the Madoff matter. SEC Plan According to a draft five-year strategic plan released Oct. 8, the agency will seek to improve training and tackle “structural issues” that hurt communication in its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. The plan followed SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz’s Sept. 29 report that said the agency missed at least six opportunities to spot Madoff’s fraud because it assigned inexperienced employees to inquiries and failed to pursue leads. The SEC’s own investigators said the agency was unwise when choosing cases and that it rewards its workers based on “quantity” rather than “quality.” Madoff, 71, is serving a 150-year sentence for running the fraud. His family members and his biggest investors have been sued for as much as $15 billion by the bankruptcy liquidator for New York-based Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Alan Schram: Does Stimulus Lead to Prosperity?

October 11, 2009

The US government will spend over $6 trillion this year, running a deficit of over $1.5 billion. Government expenditures are expected to be over 40% of GDP by next year, the budget deficit will be over 10% of GDP and our total debt will exceed our GDP for the first time since World War II. The argument for a massive spending increase as economic stimulus makes the assumption that spending is the source of our prosperity. Based on that false assumption, it is very easy to logically arrive at a wrong conclusion. But in fact it is the combination of wise spending and prudent investment that creates prosperity. Right now, the economy needs confidence, not spending. It needs a repudiation of the wide spread belief that we could have cheap credit and home ownership to all, without any consequences. A trillion-dollar increase in the federal budget deficit will not enhance investor or consumer confidence. A debt financed spending increase of that magnitude not only squanders precious resources on projects of dubious value, but will also crowd out private investment and discourage private spending, thus threatening the economic recovery. In addition, it will impose huge costs on future generations, and therefore ensures higher taxes in the future. That is not the road to prosperity. What we need instead of those counterproductive and damaging stimulus programs is a fundamental reform in our spending and entitlement programs. We will have to cut expenses, and reform Social Security and Medicare. This is not the first time it has been proposed, and a detailed plan was put forth by, among others, Professor Russ Roberts from George Mason University. Given our demographics, Social Security and Medicare are not viable in their current form and structure. In the last 70 years we have pretended that they are insurance programs. In fact, they are welfare programs masquerading as pension and insurance plans that actually take money from the poor and hand it to wealthy retirees. The absurdity of the wealthy taking a handout from the poor in the form of a retirement and health system they can afford on their own is lost on the American people, partly because the system is designed to obfuscate the welfare components that are buried deep inside it. Government at its best is a transparent one, with fair and explicit arrangements that are clear to all. Social Security and Medicare should become means-tested safety nets for the poor. Those who are capable of taking care of themselves should do so, while putting aside money for those unable to do the same. This will not only be a fair, common sense arrangement, but will also alleviate the burden off our strained national debt, simplify our budget process and assure the rest of the world that American finance is once again on solid footing. Alan Schram is the Managing Partner of Wellcap Partners, a Los Angeles based investment partnership. Email at aschram@wellcappartners.com.

Read the full article →

AIDS Study Flushes Out Virus, Pointing to Possible Cure, Scientists Say

October 2, 2009

By Simeon Bennett Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) — Scientists, moving closer to a cure for AIDS, identified a way to find medicines that would help rid patients of the hardest-to-treat pockets of HIV. Current anti-HIV drugs reduce the virus to undetectable levels without eradicating it. The virus survives by lying dormant in immune-system cells, where the medicines don’t reach them. Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute reported yesterday that they developed a way of luring out these cells in laboratory experiments, an achievement they said may lead to a cure if repeated in humans. In 2007, about 2.7 million people were newly infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and 2 million died of the disease, making it the world’s deadliest infectious malady, according to the Geneva-based World Health Organization , an arm of the United Nations. Scientists looking to stop HIV have turned to attacking so-called latent reservoirs of the virus after efforts to prevent infection, such as vaccines and gels, largely failed. “This is a way in which you could envision finding a drug that would, in conjunction with existing treatment, allow us to cure patients,” said Robert Siliciano , the professor who led the study at Johns Hopkins’s medical school in Baltimore. More research is needed, he said. For about 12 years, doctors have known that HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, can lie dormant in immune-system cells called resting CD4s found in the lymph nodes, spleen and blood. There the virus stops replicating, avoiding the drugs designed to kill it. Roaring Back Studies have shown latent HIV comes roaring back when treatment is interrupted, condemning patients to a lifetime on drugs such as Abbott Laboratories’ Kaletra that can cause side effects including nausea, liver damage and fat buildup. Eliminating the last vestiges of the virus could cure patients of the disease, allowing them to stop treatment. Siliciano’s team mimicked HIV latency in a lab dish using a gene called Bcl-2 to turn normal CD4s into resting cells capable of hosting the dormant form of HIV. The researchers used the model to test 2,400 chemicals, finding 17 that coaxed the virus out of hiding, kick-starting its normal process of replication. In a human, that would make the virus susceptible to drugs. The best performer was a compound called 5HN found in the leaves, bark and roots of the black walnut tree. ‘Key Thing’ “They’ve found a way to find drugs — that’s the key thing,” said Stephen Kent , a professor of immunology at the University of Melbourne, in a telephone interview yesterday. “We’ve really just been guessing up to this point about ways to get at this. Having a system for screening drugs is a big advance over what we’ve had so far.” The result was achieved without rousing non-infected CD4 cells, avoiding a potentially fatal scenario called a cytokine storm in which the body’s immune system overreacts. The study has limitations, Siliciano said. First, 5HN may be too toxic for use in humans, he said by phone. “It’s going to require additional research to find something that does the same thing but doesn’t have lots of other effects,” Siliciano said. “We’re pretty confident that we’ll find lots of compounds that work, but whether any of those will be sufficiently free of other effects — that’s not clear,” he said. Second, recent studies have pointed to another reservoir of latent HIV that has yet to be identified, Siliciano said. No Test “We may have to find another drug to target that reservoir,” he said. “First we have to identify what it is.” There’s no test for identifying whether a patient has latent HIV, meaning the only way to be sure a drug has polished off the virus is to cease treatment and see if it returns, the University of Melbourne’s Kent said. The findings are an advance that may allow researchers to come up with a drug they could start testing in humans, Kent said. “To get something like that into clinical trials is only a few short years — it’s not decades,” he said. “Then it’s got to work.” The study was published yesterday in the Journal of Clinical Investigation , a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Society for Clinical Investigation, of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland; the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation in New York; and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase , Maryland. To contact the reporter on this story: Simeon Bennett in Singapore at sbennett9@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

U.S. Stocks Fluctuate on Quarter’s Final Trading Day as Commodities Gain

September 30, 2009

By Elizabeth Stanton Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) — U.S. stocks fluctuated as a falling dollar boosted commodities and investors bought equities on the last day of the market’s biggest quarterly rally in a decade, offsetting an unexpected drop in a gauge of business activity. Cisco Systems Inc. and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. helped lead technology and commodity shares higher. CIT Group Inc., the 101-year-old commercial lender, tumbled 36 percent on growing concern it will be forced into bankruptcy. The dollar dropped against most major currencies, helping push oil and metal prices higher. “You’re seeing buyers putting money to work into the end of the quarter,” said Michael James , a managing director at Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles. “The third quarter has been extremely strong and I don’t think you’re going to see bulls completely walk away from the market knowing the quarter ends today.” The S&P 500 slipped added 0.1 percent to 1,059.51 at 1:46 p.m. in New York. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 3.25 points, less than 0.1 percent, to 9,738.95. The S&P 500 has jumped 15.3 percent in the third quarter, building on a 15.2 percent rally in the April-to-June period. The rally has sent price-earnings valuations in the index this month to the highest levels since 2004. The measure has rebounded 57 percent from a 12-year low in March. Stocks slumped earlier after the Institute for Supply Management-Chicago Inc. said its business barometer decreased to 46.1, lower than the most pessimistic forecast, from 50 in August. Readings below 50 signal a contraction. Companies cut payrolls by 254,000 jobs in September, according to ADP Employer Services. ‘Flatten Out’ Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he sees the U.S. economy slowing next year as the surge in stocks comes to an end. “The odds are we flatten out,” Greenspan said today in a Bloomberg Television interview, referring to the equity market. “That flattening out will put some sort of dull face on 2010.” Greenspan said he expects the economy to grow at a 3 percent to 4 percent annual pace in the next sixth months before slowing down. As a result, unemployment isn’t likely to decline much from last month’s 9.7 percent rate, he said. Even so, he doesn’t expect the economy to relapse into recession next year. Ameriprise Financial Inc. gained 14 percent to $36.98. The Minneapolis-based wealth management and insurance firm agreed to buy the Columbia stock and bond funds from Bank of America for as much as $1.2 billion in cash. Nike, Jabil Nike Inc. jumped 7.8 percent to $64.77. The world’s largest athletic-shoe maker posted first-quarter profit that exceeded analysts’ estimates as it cut marketing and personnel costs and prices improved. Jabil Circuit Inc. climbed 8.9 percent to $13.37. The electronic-parts maker forecast first-quarter earnings excluding some items of at least 24 cents a share, topping the average estimate of 16 cents from analysts in a Bloomberg survey. CIT Group Inc. slumped 36 percent to $1.40 on concern it will be forced into bankruptcy. The 101-year-old commercial lender is considering an offer of financing from Citigroup Inc. and Barclays Capital, people familiar with the situation said. Bondholders are also seeking to provide about $2 billion in loans as a restructuring deadline approaches tomorrow, said the people, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are private. CIT may choose other options, the people said. Darden Restaurants Inc. fell the most in the S&P 500, declining 6.6 percent to $33.78. The owner of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains said first-quarter sales dropped 2.3 percent, missing analysts’ estimates. Quarterly Rally All 10 of the main industry groups in the S&P 500 advanced in the third quarter, led by a 26 percent rally in financial shares, 22 percent gains in industrial and commodity companies, a 20 percent advance by consumer discretionary stocks and a 17 percent increase from technology companies. Gannett Co., the nation’s largest newspaper publisher, posted the steepest advance in the index, more than tripling in the quarter. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd. and Tenet Healthcare Corp. more than doubled. Recovering Economy The gains came amid speculation the economy was returning to growth following the worst recession in seven decades. Home prices stabilized, consumer confidence strengthened as job losses abated and the ISM said manufacturing activity ended an 18-month contraction in August. The performance of the U.S. economy is probably more sluggish than reflected in stock markets, risking a correction in equities, Nobel Prize-winning economist Michael Spence said. U.S. stock-market investors have “over processed” the stabilization of growth in the world’s largest economy, Spence said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. The U.S. economy isn’t likely to experience a “double-dip” slowdown even as that remains a risk, said the professor emeritus of management in the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. Alcoa will be the first company in the Dow average to release third-quarter earnings next week, set for Oct. 7. Analysts expect profits in the S&P 500 to drop 22 percent on average in the third quarter before rebounding 63 percent in the final three months of the year, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg. “Third quarter data is going to show for many companies enough indications that indeed the economy bottomed in July,” said William Greiner , chief investment officer at Scout Investment Advisors in Kansas City, Missouri, which manages $8.5 billion. “It’s hard not to be bullish in the face of what I see as 20 to 25 percent earnings growth rates over the next few quarters.” The International Monetary Fund today cut its projection for global writedowns on loans and investments by 15 percent to $3.4 trillion, citing improvements in credit markets and initial signs of economic growth. To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Stanton in New York at estanton@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Bruce Judson: New Income Inequality Data: Surprising and Frightening

September 29, 2009

The newest economic inequality numbers, which ran counter to the expectations of almost all experts , are frightening. Yesterday, the Associated Press released an article titled, US income gap widens as poor take hit in recession . The opening paragraph of the article, based on recent census data, reads: The recession has hit middle-income and poor families hardest, widening the economic gap between the richest and poorest Americans as rippling job layoffs ravaged household budgets. The article, which then discussed the Census statistics that led to this conclusion, failed to mention that the Census Bureau considered the differences between 2007 and 2008, with regard to economic inequality, statistically insignificant . But, whether the Census Data shows a meaningful increase, or not. is irrelevant. The Census Data reports that, contrary to the almost universal expectations of economists , economic inequality most likely did not decrease in 2008. Experts had anticipated that the declines in income of the rich would lead to a reversal in this groups ever–widening share of our national income. Instead, the Census reported that the 2008 income losses by the top 10% of Americans were offset by larger losses among middle class and poorer Americans. MIT economist Simon Johnston appears to have been one notable exception to this expectation of a shrinking income gap. Let’s review what we know about the measurement of income inequality before discussing the disturbing implications of this newest government report. About two weeks ago, I critiqued a Sept 10, 2009 front page story in the Wall Street Journal titled, Income Gap Shrinks in Slump at the Expense of the Wealthy . My critique had three central points: First, economists have, with few exceptions, agreed that Census Data is inappropriate for measuring income inequality because it consistently understates the income of the wealthiest families. To protect the privacy of reporting individuals, the Census “top-codes” income, which means that no one is ever recorded as making more than about $1.1 million in a single year. So, oil traders, hedge fund executives and anyone else at the super-high end of the income strata who might earn $100, $50 or $5 million in a single year, always earn $1.1 million or less in this Census Data. In addition, the Census Data does not include capital gains income, which is typically a large source of income for the wealthiest Americans. Two economists, Professors Emanuel Saez and Thoma Pickety, developed a method for measuring income inequality using IRS data, which avoided the problems inherent in using Census Data. This data was recently updated in response to the IRS release of 2007 information , and found that: Economic inequality in 2006 was, by some measures at the highest levels, ever found in the data available for the past 95 years. In 2007, these same measure showed a further jump further bringing America to it it’s highest levels of economic inequality in recorded history. As a consequence of Census top-coding and the lack of capital gains data, the Saez-Picketty methodology has consistently shown that the Census substantially understates the extent of economic inequality in the nation. This means that, there is a real possibility that the the new Census Data understated the extent to which income inequality grew in 2008 , and that the relative losses of the wealthiest families, versus less fortunate Americans, will be more than statistically insignificant. It is possible that losses in reported capital income by the wealthiest Americans, if captured by the Saez-Picketty methodology, will be larger than the the incomes above $1.1 million that were not reported and offset the Census findings, leading as economists anticipated to a decline in the share of income going to the rich. However, I view this as unlikely. In considering this possibility, its important to remember that the IRS works on reported income gains, not gains which were never captured as taxable income. For income reporting purposes, the question is not whether the market value of capital assets declined but whether they were sold at an actual loss from their purchase price. We will not know the answer to this question until July or August 2010, but in weighing the available evidence my working hypothesis is that as demonstrated by this new Census Report, income inequality did not decrease from 2008 to 2007. Second, the original Journal article expressed a strong expectation that, as a result of the Great Recession, the ongoing growth of income inequality would decline substantially through 201o. My critique indicated that this was “far from clear.” The conventional economic wisdom, based on historical data, is that income inequality decreases, at least temporarily, as the richest Americans lose income faster than less-well-off Americans during a downturn. In contrast, this new data suggests that the dangerous cycle toward increasing income at the top of America has become even more self-reinforcing than previously recognized . We are now at the point where the pure market forces, which many economists told us would eliminate this issue, are no longer effective. Third, the Journal article implied that the decrease in economic inequality it incorrectly predicted might be the start of a long-term trend. Instead, I demonstrated that, even if income inequality did decline in 2008 and 2009, it would almost certainly be “temporary.” The historical evidence shows that economic inequality frequently declines in a downturn, in the absence of strong government action, but that it will almost inevitably rebound and continue its march forward. Now, let’s return to our main point: Early next week, my new book It Could Happen Here will be released by HarperCollins. The book is an in-depth look , based on a historical analysis, of the implications of our historically high levels of economic inequality for the nation’s ultimate, long-term political stability. As economic inequality grows, nations invariably become increasingly politically unstable: Should we complacently believe that America will be different? A central conclusion of the book is that once economic inequality reaches a self-reinforcing cycle it is halted only by inevitably controversial, hard-fought, bitterly opposed government action. Senator Jim Webb encapsulated this idea, when he wrote in his book, A Time to Fight: Reclaiming A Fair and Just America: “No aristocracy in history has decided to give up any portion of its power willingly.” In 1928, economic inequality was near today’s levels. Franklin Roosevelt succeeded in reversing the trend toward the continuing concentration of wealth, but it was a turbulent battle. In 1936, while campaigning for his second term and speaking at Madison Square Garden, FDR told the crowd : “Never before in all our history have these forces [Organized Money] been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said, wait a minute, I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.” In FDR’s era and in our own, money brings power: both explicitly and implicitly, in hundreds of different ways, both large and small. Today, the wealthiest Americans, together with a number of financial and corporate interests that act on their behalf, protect their ever-increasing influence through activities that include, among others, lobbying, supplying expertise to the councils of government, casual conversation at dinner parties, the potential for jobs after government service, the power to run media advertisements that influence public opinion. Indeed, MIT economist Simon Johnston, writing in The Atlantic asserted that the U.S. is now run by an oligarchy: The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated [ from 1983 to 2007] gave bankers enormous political weight–a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man) … Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world’s most advanced economy, military, and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy. The new inequality data suggests that the potential problems for the nation associated with the concentration of wealth and power are even more severe than previously recognized. Two weeks ago, I wrote that “Once income concentration becomes a reinforcing cycle of the kind we are witnessing, it is never stopped by pure market forces.” This mechanism is now in full swing. The market forces associated with the Great Recession, which many economist had expected to stem the growing, corrosive gap between the rich and the poor, appear to have become ineffective. The great strength of American democracy has always been its capacity for self-correction. However, Robert Dahl, the eminent political scientist, recognized that political power fueled by wealth may ultimately neutralize this central aspect of our democracy. In his 2006 book, On Political Equality , Dahl wrote: As numerous studies have shown, inequalities in income and wealth are likely to produce other inequalities.. The unequal accumulation of political resources points to an ominous possibility: political inequalities may be ratcheted up, so to speak, to a level from which they cannot be ratcheted down. The cumulative advantages in power, influence, and authority of the more privileged strata may become so great that even if less privileged Americans compose a majority of citizens they are simply unable, and perhaps even unwilling, to make the effort it would require to overcome the forces of inequality arrayed against them. In the chapter following this quote, Dahl notes “that we should not assume this future is inevitable.” He’s right. But, was clearly concerned. Three years late, we should be even more concerned. Many current Executive Branch initiatives deserve our support and praise: However, nothing proposed to date will effectively halt growing economic inequality, and its corrosive impact on our economy and the long-term future of the nation. (In a future post, I will explicitly discuss the proposed regulatory reform of the financial sector.) My analysis in It Could Happen Here concludes that without a vibrant middle class, the the American democracy as we know it, is not sustainable. Before the Great Recession, the middle class was in far worse shape than was generally acknowledged . In an economy with a record number of job seekers for every available job , the potential for nearly one-half of all home mortgages to be underwater , and increasing foreclosures , the collapse of the middle class will accelerate. With each job loss and each foreclosure, another family becomes a member of the former middle class . America has never been a society sharply divided between have’s and have not’s. Unfortunately, this new data says to me we continue to head in that direction. Economists assumed that the Great Recession would be a circuit breaker that would halt this advance, at least temporarily. It did not. With no new legislation, it appears are potentially on course for 13 million foreclosures , almost one in every four mortgages in the nation, from the end of 2008 through 2014. Do we really believe that we can turn such huge numbers of Americans out of their homes with no consequences for the health of our system of governance? Could our democracy survive a transformation into a nation composed principally of a privileged upper class and an underclass, which struggles from paycheck to paycheck and lacks basic economic security? We will only reign in growing economic inequality if the President and the Congress are ready to fight in the style of Franklin Roosevelt. FDR was a divider not a conciliator. Before World War II, he fought an all-out war at home. Today, “There’s class warfare, all right,” as Warren Buffett said , “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” I fervently hoped that we have not passed the point of no return, described by Professor Dahl. The recent news shows we are one step further on this road. If we continue down it, our nation may be on the path to becoming a House divided against itself, which ultimately cannot stand.

Read the full article →

Video: Inside Look – Economy Needs "Something Else"

September 25, 2009

Exclusive Interview with Columbia University Professor Joseph Stiglitz (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

Video: More Perspective – Regulating Wall Street

September 25, 2009

From Financial Crisis to Reform – Analysis and Discussion with University of San Diego Law Professor Frank Partnoy (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

Video: Inside Look – How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?

September 18, 2009

Interview with University of Chicago Finance Professor John Cochrane (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

Pamela Samuelson: Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement?

August 19, 2009

Google reached a settlement agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers in October 2008 aimed at ending lawsuits, brought in 2005, that challenged Google’s unauthorized scanning of in-copyright books for its Google Book Search (GBS) project. As I explained last Monday, the settlement is audacious because it uses the legal jujitsu of the class action procedure to give Google a breathtaking license to all in-copyright books. The agreement authorizes Google to create a digital library of these books and to commercialize most of them. Google will compensate rights holders for commercialization of these books either directly if they signed up with the Google partner program or indirectly through a newly created Book Rights Registry (BRR) whose job is to distribute money to rights holders signed up with BRR. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced in late April 2009 that it was investigating whether the settlement agreement is, as some critics charge, an agreement that will unreasonably restrain trade or create a monopoly that would enable Google to extract monopoly rents from the books and further entrench Google’s dominance in the search market. Antitrust analysis generally starts with a definition of the affected market. The market for digital books is currently rather small, but it is growing. Many predict that it will become a major market in the future. Clearly, Amazon and Barnes & Noble, as well as Google, can negotiate with rights holders of in-print books to make these books available in digital form (although the settlement would give Google the right to scan the books first and negotiate later). Google argues that Amazon and other digital booksellers can also license rights to sell digital books from the BRR. And of course, anyone can sell or give away public domain books. Because the BRR will only have authority to license books registered with it, two categories of books are potentially unavailable for licensing to digital booksellers other than Google: books not registered with BRR and “orphan” books (that is, books whose rights holders cannot be located through a reasonably diligent search). Antitrust critics of the settlement have expressed concern about the “monopoly” that Google will have over orphan books. Google argues that relatively few books are actually orphans because BRR will find their “parents” and sign them up, and besides, it supports orphan work legislation. Google has also said that anyone is as free as it was to scan books and settle any future lawsuits on similar terms. My concerns about the competition-policy consequences of the settlement center on the market for institutional subscriptions. The settlement gives Google the right to have and make available the contents of a universal library of books. Anyone else could build a digital library with public domain books and whatever other books it could license from publishers or BRR. But no one else can offer a comparably comprehensive institutional subscription service because only Google has a license to all out-of-print books. Google’s optimistic estimate is that only 10 percent of the books in the corpus will really be “orphans,” but 10 percent is still roughly two million books. Suppose the real percentage of orphans is closer to 30 percent and another 20 percent of those whom BRR tries to sign up tell the BRR reps to get lost. Google already has a five-year head start, an ability to integrate GBS with other products and services, and licenses in place with many institutions. Any firm contemplating a competitive product would quickly realize that it couldn’t offer a comparably complete database of books. Google’s head start may, moreover, provide sufficient time for network effects to kick in, which would further deter entry. Google is thus likely to have a de facto monopoly on institutional subscriptions. The license to out-of-print books that Google would get if the settlement is approved is a key and perhaps an insurmountable barrier to entry for other firms. A monopoly over institutional licenses would allow Google to charge monopoly rents. Even if it doesn’t plan to do this immediately, Google may come under pressure to do so over time because BRR has to agree on the price of institutional licenses. Publishers and authors registered with BRR may think they deserve ever higher returns. So what are the options and what are antitrust authorities likely to do? Google is hoping that the DOJ will decide that the settlement agreement, on balance, is likely to have more pro- than anti-competitive effects because it would inject new competition into the market for digital books. Even with orphan works, the DOJ could view GBS as beneficial because it will provide greater access to orphan books than in the past. The free public access terminal to GBS (one per public library) may also weigh in favor of approval. Antitrust critics of the settlement hope that the DOJ will view the agreement as so deeply anti-competitive that it cannot be justified. This drastic response is unlikely unless the DOJ regards the settlement as a collusive use of the class action process to restructure the market for digital books in an anti-competitive manner and significantly raise barriers to entry. Rather than scuttling the deal altogether, though, DOJ could insist that the whole GBS corpus be licensed to others. A third option is for the DOJ to articulate concerns about aspects of the settlement agreement with the greatest anti-competitive potential and announce its intent to monitor implementation of the agreement instead of challenging it now. A fourth option is to condition DOJ’s support for the settlement on changes to the agreement. DOJ could insist, for example, that the class of settling rights holders must grant a license to third parties such as Amazon to make orphan works available on comparable terms to the license granted to Google. Or it might require Google to drop the “most favored nation” clause under which the BRR cannot offer more favorable terms to others under certain conditions. DOJ could also insist that Google agree not to extend its scanning of in-copyright works beyond books. Under the Bush Administration, the DOJ would likely have done nothing about the GBS settlement. But the Obama Administration takes antitrust seriously. We will know very soon what DOJ plans to do, for the judge presiding over the settlement agreement has asked DOJ to report on its antitrust analysis by September 18. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor of Law and Information at the University of California, Berkeley. She can be reached at pam@law.berkeley.edu . Coming up next: Google Wouldn’t Price-Gouge, Would It?

Read the full article →

President Obama Raises a Glass as Beer Sales Fall Flat: Chart of Day

July 31, 2009

By Duane D. Stanford July 31 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama ’s three-man race-relations symposium at the White House is providing publicity for a U.S

Read the full article →

Video: Inside Look – Why Deficits Matter

July 31, 2009

Analysis and Discussion with UC Berkley Economics & Law Professor Alan Auerbauch (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

Video: Inside Look – Why Deficits Matter

July 31, 2009

Analysis and Discussion with UC Berkley Economics & Law Professor Alan Auerbauch (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

Obama to Meet With Gates, Crowley at White House on July 30, Official Says

July 27, 2009

By Nicholas Johnston and Hans Nichols July 28 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama is bringing Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr . and Cambridge, Massachusetts, police Sergeant James Crowley to the White House on July 30, an administration official said last night. The three men are set to convene about 6 p.m. at the executive mansion, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting hadn’t been officially announced

Read the full article →

Harvard Professor Gates in Handcuffs Sounds a Familiar Note to Black Men

July 22, 2009

By John Lauerman and Tom Moroney July 22 (Bloomberg) — The arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. , Harvard University’s top expert on African-American history and culture, sounded a familiar note to professors and social scientists, who said black men at all levels of U.S.

Read the full article →

Chris Gunn: Rep. Johnson Applauds American Small Business League for its Work on Small Business Contracting

July 21, 2009

Congressman Hank Johnson (D – GA) , today issued a press release applauding the American Small Business League (ASBL) and its President Lloyd Chapman for their efforts as an advocate for small businesses, specifically businesses owned by minorities, women and veterans. On May 21, Congressman Johnson proposed bipartisan legislation known as the “Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act of 2009.” H.R. 2568 would provide small businesses across the country with billions of dollars in additional contracting opportunities. Chapman originally drafted the concept for the bill with guidance from the nation’s preeminent expert on contracting law, Professor Charles Tiefer.

Read the full article →