street

WATCH: Faces Of Zuccotti Park: The Homeless Artist

by The Huffington Post on November 9, 2011

Huffington Post…

This is the third in a series of profiles focusing on the protesters of Occupy Wall Street. Sleeping on the street or in illegal squats has become a way of life in recent years for James, a 40-year-old silversmith. Friends persuaded him to leave New York and start a business in Arizona a few years back, but things didn’t work out the way he had hoped. “I heard there was a lot of cheap silver, but going out there, I actually ended up homeless,” James says. Since returning to Manhattan, he’s found comfort in the community of Zuccotti Park. Like James, many of the city’s homeless have come to seek refuge here, where free food is offered three times a day and extra blankets and warm clothes are readily available. “If this wasn’t going on, most of these people who are really homeless would be on the west side by the water,” he says, “living under a bench.” Watch the video above to hear more of James’ story.

See the article here:
WATCH: Faces Of Zuccotti Park: The Homeless Artist

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

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

Instead of broadcasting their views on a sign, Facebook group or Twitter, some supporters of the Occupy Wall Street protests are illustrating their frustrations on dollar bills. The group, calling itself Occupy George , is circulating dollar bills featuring infographics with facts about income inequality. One graphic includes a dotted line drawn through George Washington’s face with the words “Richest 400 Americans” on one side and “Bottom 150,000,000 Americans” on the other, indicating that the top 400 earners in America make as much as the bottom 150,000,000. In actuality, the disparity in incomes may even be worse than the graphic let on: The total net worth of the bottom 60 percent of Americans is less than that of Forbes 400 richest Americans . Another dollar bill drawing features pie charts illustrating the income growth disparity in the 1920s, 1960s and 2000s. The picture indicates the gap is wider now than it was during the Great Depression. The top one percent of earners netted two-thirds of the nation’s income gains from 2002 to 2007, which put income concentration at the highest level since 1928, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . The U.S. median income declined 7 percent in the last decade and though economists predict incomes will rise in the next 10 years it won’t be enough to get incomes back to pre-recession levels, the Wall Street Journal reports. At the same time, tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans are costing the U.S. government 11.6 million every hour , according to the National Priorities Project. Famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett advocated in an op-ed in The New York Times to end tax breaks for the “mega rich” as one way to close the income gap . The goal of Occupy George is to inform “the public of America’s daunting economic disparity one bill at a time,” according to its website . Here are dollar bill infographics from Occupy George :

Read the original here:
‘Occupy George’ Activists Stamp Income Inequality Graphics Onto Dollar Bills (PHOTOS)

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

{ 0 comments }

Hundreds Sign Up For Yom Kippur Service At Occupy Wall Street

October 8, 2011

NEW YORK — It’s rare that Mae Singerman, a self-described secular Jew who grew up in a Reform family, observes Yom Kippur by praying, fasting or attending synagogue. But at sundown on Friday, the 27-year-old from Brooklyn planned to join hundreds of other Jews at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration for Kol Nidre, the opening service of Yom Kippur that starts the holiest time on the Jewish calendar. “For me, it’s about bringing my Jewish identity and my politics together,” said Singerman, who has participated in several anti-capitalism protests in recent years and visited the demonstration at Zuccotti Park for the first time last week. “Having a Jewish service or ceremony brings more Jews who wouldn’t necessarily come. I know people coming tonight who are pretty skeptical about Occupy Wall Street but are willing to give it a try because of the Yom Kippur service .” Organized mostly via Facebook over the last week, the Kol Nidre service starts at 7 p.m. across from the downtown park where demonstrations have occurred since mid-September. Almost 500 people have RSVP’d on Facebook, although at least a few dozen of them are out-of-towners who are just showing their support. The service, led by rabbis and students from several Jewish traditions, has been endorsed by Jewish organizations such as Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and the Shalom Center. The Rabbinical Assembly for Conservative Judaism has donated 100 prayer books for the service, and organizers say that the Battery Park Synagogue and Chabad of Wall Street have welcomed holy-day observers who spend the night at the protest camp to come pray at Saturday services. Similar Kol Nidre services have also been planned in Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Daniel Sieradski , one of the service’s organizers who has been participating in the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, said he was inspired to arrange for the Yom Kippur service by a part of the haftarah from the Hebrew Bible, which is typically read the first morning of Yom Kippur. “You can fast for a day, you cover yourself in ashes, you can wear a sack cloth, but who cares if you are not out there feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, breaking the bonds of oppression?” said Sieradski, paraphrasing Isaiah 58:5. “I am less concerned about halacha, Jewish law, and traditional observance than I am about the prophetic character of recognizing the divine in my fellow human being,” said Sieradski, who also plans to observe the Jewish holiday of Sukkot at the demonstration. While Sieradski said he does not plan to sleep over at the encampment Friday night, Nom, a 23-year-old Talmud student, said she plans to spend the night there with a group of friends to start her Yom Kippur observance. She will walk two hours to her upper Manhattan home on Saturday morning to attend synagogue. “Part of Yom Kippur is that you are supposed to review the past year to see what you can improve about yourself and your community. I am seeing right now that I live in a country where homes are being foreclosed, where people are losing jobs and people are suffering,” said Nom, who did not wish to give her last name. “We’re hoping the people up top can do some sort of teshuva. It literally means ‘return,’ but the whole point is that one specifically in the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur will admit their wrongdoings and ask for forgiveness,” she said. “We are putting ourselves out there. and so should Wall Street. They should have the opportunity to review their actions and change.”

Read the full article →

Japan stocks rise 1.2% in overseas gains

August 24, 2011

(MENAFN – Saudi Press Agency) Japanese shares jumped 1.2 per cent Tuesday as overnight gains on Wall Street and European markets improved investor sentiment. The benchmark Nikkei 225 Stock …

Read the full article →

Jodi Summers = Office Real Estate » THE SOCAL OFFICE REAL ESTATE …

June 4, 2011

Several recent indicators suggest an easing of investment capital for real estate transaction. CoStar notes that life insurers have become more active lenders ; new CMBS offerings are hitting the street; syndicators are starting to assemble new … Commercial real estate lending is down 75% from peak levels, but it rebounded in the past 12 months. It was up 88% in the first quarter of 2011 from the first quarter of 2010, according to CoStar Group. …

Read the full article →

Lynn Parramore: Conversation with Jeff Madrick, Author of Age of Greed (Part Two)

June 1, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . In the second part of his interview with ND20 Editor Lynn Parramore, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick talks about the core message of his new book,  Age of Greed , and what happens now that our economic myths have been shattered. If you’re in the New York City area, you can catch Jeff’s author’s talk tomorrow night at Cooper Union.  Click here for more information on the event. Lynn Parramore : If the recent financial crisis disproved the dominant free market/efficient market economic models of the Age of Greed and exposed rampant fraud, deceit, and risky behavior, why are we still so firmly in the grip of faulty economic thinking? Jeff Madrick : I think we’re still in the grips of it for a couple of reasons. One is the extraordinary power of Wall Street and monied interests and the power of money in campaigns. This is a very serious sphere in the heart of democracy in America. Number two: the reformers, the good guys, are basically only looking to stop the next crisis. In fact, they should be looking to make the financial system work properly again. It didn’t fail only in 2007 and 2008. It failed time and again since the 1970s. Reform has to be directed at that. That’s a much harder issue. LP : What areas of the financial system are most in need of new policies and practices? JM : It’s not about Too Big to Fail. It’s about restraining crazy levels of speculation. It’s about seriously restraining compensation that’s based not on productive investments but on shuffling paper. It’s about making individual executives responsible for what they do and subject to losses. Now they are not subject to losses because the shareholders bear the loss. One of the remarkable things about the Age of Greed — and why I call it that — is that not only did people make enormous money and were able to pursue their self-interest unchecked, but they reversed the history of American reforms. We learned how to deal with this in the 1930s. We learned the problems. We developed regulations. And not only were some of those regulations reversed in letter, they were basically reversed in spirit. LP : What lessons of the 1930s did we unlearn in the Age of Greed? JM : FDIC insurance was the most successful program of the 1930s. But when money-market funds came around, and you and I put our money there without thinking about it. Nobody thought, my God! We better ensure that these money-market funds are okay — they’re not insured! Well, sure enough, in 2007-8 there was a run on money-market funds. The SEC was created to make sure investment banks, when they raised money through stocks and other relevant securities, disclosed all relevant information. In the 1990s and 2000s, federal regulators stopped forcing disclosure. No one even knew what was in a collaterized debt obligation any longer. In fact, I think you aren’t even allowed to know what was in it unless you were an investor. The SEC was created to make sure that pricing was transparent. Then we had the development of over-the-counter derivative markets where pricing was totally secret, totally subject to the whim of a particular investment bank — Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and so forth. Things became obscure, which was the opposite of the spirit of the SEC. So America reversed history in this period. LP : To get the fundamental restructuring that’s necessary to put us on more sound economic footing, what’s most vitally important for financial regulators do to? JM : To concentrate on capital requirements, which is no small thing in a global world. To raise capital requirements significantly in order to restrain speculation. The same with leverage requirements. I believe what would help is a financial transactions tax to diminish over-speculation. But I think what regulators have to begin to come terms with – and it’s not even in the air, certainly not a serious consideration – is to understand that Wall Street is a monopoly. Almost like an electric utility used to be a monopoly. Why is Linked In trading so high? Because Wall Street makes an enormous of money on an Initial Public Offering–5, 6, 7% of that offering. That’s what drove the crazy high-tech fantasies of the late 1990s. Wall Street made absurd levels of compensation. That’s what drove Walter Wriston’s loans to South America. It wasn’t the interest rate spread – you know, “we’ll charge you a certain interest rate and we’re paying a slightly lower interest rate”. It’s that they made 2% of the face amount. 1-2% for every loan they made, which went right to the bottom line. This is monopoly stuff and it violates good economics and it’s justification for the federal government to come in and begin to control the compensation. Now that, in the current environment, is considered radical. And it should not be considered radical. LP : Some point to the current weak economy and high unemployment rates as evidence that the Keynesian economic model, which favors government intervention, doesn’t work. The argument that things could have been much worse without the stimulus, for example, is easy to dismiss and attack. Are you optimistic about a revival of Keynsianism under these circumstances? Who are its most effective proponents? JM : The issue is – as is often the case – that the president has not reminded people how effective the stimulus was. Now most economists know this. The right wing denies it. Alan Greenspan continues to do damage by claiming a “lack of confidence” and uncertainty and saying that it’s the budget that has kept people from investing. It is utter nonsense. And it has to be combated at the very top. I’ve heard Geithner combat it. I don’t think he’s a very effective guy, but at least he tried to combat that and show that those policies work. Unemployment would have gone to 12 and 13% if there had not been these Keynesian policies. The loudest credible voices are obvious. It’s Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. How effective they are, I’m not so sure. But they are right. And right is all you can be, in some senses. LP : What would you say is the main message of your book? JM : I hope that the main message of my book is that individuals created this crisis. It was not an act of nature. It was not inevitable. People say, what are you getting so angry about? Just roll with the punches. But this is not just ‘how it is.’ Sure, there’s going to be overspeculation in a free market system occasionally, and some kinds of market contractions, but they don’t have to be catastrophic. There is no inevitability unless government abandons its responsibility.

Read the full article →

Government Properties Income Trust Acquires 305 E 46th for $114M

June 1, 2011

Government Properties Income Trust acquired 305 E. 46th Street in New York City from Extell Development Company for $114 million, or approximately $742 per square foot. The 16-story, 153,689-square-foot office building was built in 1928 and is located between First and Second Ave. in the United Nations submarket. The building currently houses the United Nations in a lease through 2018. James Gross of Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc. represented…

Read the full article →

Lynn Parramore: Conversation with Jeff Madrick, Author of Age of Greed (Part One)

May 31, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick recently sat down with ND20 Editor Lynn Parramore to discuss his latest book, Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present , which hits stands today. If you’re in the New York City area and want to learn more, catch Jeff at Cooper Union on Thursday, June 2nd. Click here for more information on the event. Lynn Parramore : You called your book Age of Greed , tracing the antecedents and activities of a four-decade period starting in the 1970s. Why did you choose greed as the central theme? Why not “Age of Risk” or “Age of Delusion”, for example? Jeff Madrick : I think greed always exists. It rises and falls with the times. But when it’s unchecked by government, which has been happening since the 1970s, it festers on itself. It becomes outsized and it badly distorts the economy. That is to say, self-interest rises to a level of greed that overwhelms the economic invisible hand. When self-interest turns into greed, people start using the power of business to undermine the way markets should work. What happened in this era was that people worked in their self-interest. They didn’t just take more risk. They were not deluded. Many of them took more risks than they should and merely did it because they made a buck. So greed really drove this decade: money and self-interest in the extreme drove very bad decision-making on Wall Street, which in turn, it’s important to emphasize, deeply harmed the American economy. LP : Walter Wriston, a name perhaps unknown to many Americans, gives the title to not one but two chapters of your book? Why is this figure pivotal? JM : My writing career began in the 1970s, so he was a big name to me. I interviewed him several times. Walter Wriston was the pioneer in the effort to deregulate financial markets. He was a talented, very bright man who ran a very powerful bank and had enormous access to the Republicans who took over in 1969 through Richard Nixon’s victory. And he is the one who began unraveling the regulations — the way controlled commercial banks, which took FDIC-insured savings deposits, could invest their money. In fact, as people read the book, they’ll see that he was a free-market ideologue. He really hated the New Deal. His father, a prominent conservative historian who ultimately was president of Brown University, hated the New Deal. Wriston inherited that from him in my view. But he also used it for his company’s own gain. In the 1970s, Wriston really began to whittle down the famous ” Regulation Q “, which controlled the interest rate that could pay savers to attract money. And therefore the banks could get more aggressive about where they lent the money. He also developed an enormous international business. What was remarkable about Wriston — to the detriment of the American economy to a degree but especially to the third world — was that he took the petrodollars of the Arab nations. The Arab nations got a lot of dollars when they tripled, quadrupled and again doubled the price of oil. All of that was paid in dollars to them. They had to do something with those dollars. Wriston leaped in to recycle them by making loans to the third world –especially by developing nations. Especially in South America. Government could just as easily have been handled by the I.M.F., the World Bank, or some ad hoc group of governments to oversee the use of that money, and even to make it equity money, not loan money — investments and productive business. Instead it was lent to countries, and, to some degree, companies that had exported commodities. Wriston heralded how well his loan officers could manage that money and the loans almost all turned bad in the 1980s — so bad that the banks chose to stop lending to countries in trouble, particularly Mexico in 1982. The Fed and the I.M.F. had to rescue, in effect, the American banks. LP : Wriston started his career -and remained for some time — a rather unassuming man who lived in a middle class housing project. But by the end of his career he was living among celebrities and driving fancy sports cars. Does that trajectory reflect a key change in American banking and financial culture? JM : A good friend of mine told me back in the ’70s that financiers never became wildly rich in American history. Take J.P. Morgan, the greatest financier in American history. When he died, Andrew Carnegie said, “I didn’t know he had so little money.” In the 1970s that began to change. Financiers became enormously wealthy. Wriston was the leading edge of that, but he wasn’t the man to make by any means the most money. He wanted to make a bank into a growth company, like Xerox or IBM or Johnson & Johnson, which were the great growth companies. Or later, Microsoft, Apple. But should banks have been growth companies? In the meantime, he began to travel in a very powerful world and he began to live the good life. I think it was the beginning of that kind of thing, but others took it to excesses that made him look like a piker. LP : That brings me to Ivan Boesky. He’s the first character in the book who really seems to capture the very essence of greed. He’s a bandit with no pretense that he’s working on behalf of anyone else. Was he the beginning of this era’s greed in its purest form? JM : Ivan had no illusions about what he was doing. Now, I don’t know if that’s as un-admirable as it sounds. Because many of the other guys created a pretense to allow them to seek their self-interest–and, in my view, become excessive, even corrupt. Ivan knew he was corrupt. He intended to be corrupt. Where he was stupid is that he really didn’t even try to seriously cover his tracks. LP : Was he an outlier? Did this type of behavior become something others wanted to emulate? JM : He was the leading edge of the culture. Few people were quite as crude as Boesky. They disguised it. They didn’t brag about it that much. But they were very aggressive in their own way and Ivan occasionally talked about that famous line from Adam Smith that greed is healthy. He thought he was emulating Smith. By greed he meant self-interest. But he wasn’t really concerned about those bigger things. He had certain psychological issues, some of which I trace in my book. He needed constant social affirmation. He needed it. In my view, he couldn’t walk into a room anonymously. It just was too much for his shallow and very weak ego. He needed that money and would do anything for it. He was a mobster. He was addicted to money and he would commit financial crimes to get it with no qualms. LP : You outline how the hatred of government intrusion drove many of the early proponents of the free market model. This seems a great irony, given that financiers who hate government need its cooperation — its guarantees, its bailouts — in order to get and stay rich. How do you explain this contradiction? JM : Self-interest means that you will do anything, even utilize government, to make your money and to retain your place in society. There are many examples of people who think that the rules apply to others but not themselves. Wriston was a classic example of this. It wasn’t only the bad bank loans. In 1970 when Penn Central went bankrupt, his bank made the most commercial paper loans to Penn Central. He was scared to death everything was going to fall apart. He called the Fed – I don’t know if he spoke to the Chairman, Arthur Burns, but the Fed opened its window like it did in 2007. This happened many times with Wriston. He talked this game of free competition, but when he needed to be bailed out, he got bailed out. So it’s an extreme hypocrisy — not an unusual characteristic of egotistical, ambitious men and women. There are double standards. LP : Many argue today that government has been captured, or even restructured through the influence of the financial and banking industries. Is this true? If so, how can trust in government – trust in its ability to intervene in crises — be restored? JM : There is no explanation for the deregulation and lack of oversight on the part of Washington except that they were snookered, beholden, or saw where their bread was buttered because of the rise of Wall Street and how much money you could make. Something we have to be cautious about: we’re snookered by a simplistic ideology. The people who adopt ideologies and idealism do so often because it favors themselves and their own pocketbooks. The history of this period is a history of the abdication of government authority. Part of it was the result of this rising ideology in the ’70s. Part of it was because Americans became convinced that big government and some kinds of regulations are problems. A lot of it had to do eventually with the sheer power of business to attract and influence these decision makers. LP : Could government have done anything to stop greed? JM : Greed would have remained checked had government been doing what it should be doing. And that’s a tragedy of the age. One point we have to make clear is that the nation did not start wasting its money and losing its precious resources in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The financial community has been ill-serving the nation since the 1970s. I talked about the bad loans Wriston made. There were also all kinds of bad real estate loans made in that period. In the ’80s the banks and other financial institutions financed the corporate takeovers – that was billions and billions of dollars. The S&L’s made all kinds of bad loans because they were deregulated. In the early ’90s banks and securities firms began using derivatives to make tricky loans to companies like Proctor&Gamble and Orange County. In 1994, when the Fed raised interest rates, those financial structures fell apart and Wall Street almost with it. In the late 1990s, Wall Street financed all kinds of high-tech fantasies. There was bad accounting. Outright lies by financial analysts on Wall Street. You could not keep your job and make your fame on Wall Street unless you lied. Accounting fraud and unaccepted accounting practices were rife throughout American in the late 1990s. LP : So greed is the central problem, but deceit is the handmaiden? JM : When you sell a product — Electrolux vacuum cleaners, Avon hand lotions – it would be naïve to think that there isn’t some kind of exaggeration. But Wall Street became imbued with deceit at very high levels of transactions. The cost to the economy – the misallocation of resources – was huge. In the 1970s there were the bad loans in Central America. In the 1980s, the outrageous investments made by S&Ls with federally insured money. In the 1980s again – huge hostile takeovers financed with tax-deductible dollars that were not ameliorated by government. In the 1990s, the high-technology fantasies — Enron and WorldCom, telecom companies rife with accounting frauds. This amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars of bad investment. Even trillions of dollars. And then, of course, the 2000s – there were the subprime mortgages and other bad mortgages. Trillions, literally. LP : What have these losses meant to America’s economy? JM : This is all a misallocation of resources in America. When Alan Greenspan said his great mea culpa –”I have this model of the economy and it worked for forty years and then it didn’t work” – that is nonsense. It did not work. There was constant misallocation of losses. He would argue, well, we need those losses in order to have the good. But look what happened to the economy during this period. We had twenty-two or twenty-three years of low-productivity growth. When productivity did start to rise, typical workers benefited from it only for a few short years in the late 1990s. Wages over this period of the Age of Greed have stagnated. They’re actually down for men. They’re up for women but only moderately over time, and women still make significantly less than men do with the same qualifications on average. What kind of economy is that? We haven’t invested in transportation, education, health care advances, energy. The list goes on and on. And who knows how much manufacturing innovation we failed to invest in because of what happened on Wall Street. **Stay tuned tomorrow for Part Two of this interview and find out what we need to do to change course.

Read the full article →

Vitaliy N. Katsenelson: The Boulevard of Broken Charts

May 27, 2011

Markets are efficient, or so we’ve been told. I am not here to put a rebuttal to this academic nonsense, but let me give you one of the core reasons why markets are and will remain inefficient: because human beings are efficient. To function in everyday life, our brains are used to simplifying complex problems, through pattern recognition. We become accustomed to drawing straight lines when we see two points, and if we get a third or fourth point that fits the line, our confidence about the longevity (continuity) of the line increases exponentially. We become excited, even certain, about prospects of the company we’ve invested in when its stock has gone up for a long period of time, while we often dismiss stocks that have declined or flat-lined, especially if that happened for a considerable period of time. Imagine an analyst bringing a “fresh” stock idea to a portfolio manager at a large mutual fund. He’d say something among these lines: Cisco is a buy, it has a bulletproof balance sheet with $25 billion of net cash (cash less debt), the stock is cheap — trading at 9 times earnings (excluding net cash), it’s providing double-digit returns on capital and it is a dominant player in the industry, which is poised to grow at a faster rate than the economy, since, thanks to iPads, Androids, Kindles, Hulus, and Netflixes, we’ll all continue to consume digital content. I can just see the portfolio manager’s smile, his laugh and comment that “This stock is a value trap, it has gone nowhere in more than a decade.” I’m glad I’m not that analyst, as I’d have a huge burden to overcome. After all, Cisco has shattered the dotcom dreams of many investors in the years following 1999, when it hit $80 a share and, for a brief moment, was one of the most valuable companies in the world, sporting a modest P/E of 100+. Since then, gravity has caught up with Cisco’s stock (it always does), and it has declined almost 80% from its highs, to $17. Most investors who bought the stock since ’99 either lost or made no money. Draw a straight line through its chart (you have more than a decade’s worth of data points), and you see it’s either going to zero or at least will continue to go nowhere. Now, you add to this performance a few quarters of disappointing Wall Street guidance, and you have an untouchable, un-recommendable stock. However, fundamentals — take any metric: revenues, earnings, cash flows — will tell a very different story: they either tripled or quadrupled since 1999. Through no fault of its own, Cisco’s stock was too expensive in 1999, and it took time for the stock to catch up to its fundamentals. Of course, as usually happens, investors get overexcited on both sides of valuation. The same investors who could not get enough of Cisco at over 100 times a little more than decade ago, don’t want touch it at 9 times earnings with a ten-foot pole. (Here is efficient market for you). The dark shadow of the stock performance hides an attractive investment. Cisco is not a spring chicken anymore, it has over $40 billion in sales. It will likely see some margin compression as parts of its business mature. Its revenue and earnings will grow at a slower rate than they did over the last decade. But at its current price Cisco doesn’t have to do anything heroic to justify its valuation, it just needs to show that it has a pulse. It is very difficult to get a unique insight into Cisco’s business or that of any large-cap stock; after all, they are followed by a small army of analysts (Cisco is followed by some 40 analysts). Some sell-side analysts undoubtedly know what John Chambers’ (Cisco’s CEO) favorite cereal is, and can recite the model number of every Cisco router by heart. Most of us cannot compete with that, nor do we need to. First of all, you need to have a time horizon longer than Wall Street’s. Wall Street is very short-term-oriented, and mutual fund managers are judged and compensated on their monthly and quarterly performance. Sell-side analysts are there to serve their buy-side masters, and thus expend their energy analyzing the next quarter, not the next five years. Therefore a time horizon longer than Wall Street is significant competitive advantage in itself. Cisco’s earnings three, five years from now are likely to be significantly higher than they are today. It is also important to understand that even a much-followed stock like Cisco will suffer from inefficiency (which as a value investor I welcome), due to investors confusing the lousy stock with the company’s fundamental performance. That is how you find high-quality companies at bargain-basement prices. Understanding what happened in the past is important, not because it is the precursor to the future, but because it helps to build the analytical bridge, through our own analysis, from today into the future. Be inefficient – don’t draw straight lines. Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer at Investment Management Associates in Denver, Colo. He is the author of The Little Book of Sideways Markets (Wiley, December 2010). To receive Vitaliy’s future articles by email, click here or read his articles here . See also: ■Microsoft Just Pulled Another “Microsoft” with its Purchase of Skype » ■I am back! » Copyright Vitaliy N. Katsenelson 2011. This article may be republished only in its entirety and without modifications.

Read the full article →

Money for CRE Deals Starting To Flow

May 26, 2011

Numerous indications over the past few weeks point to an easing of investment capital for real estate deals. Life insurers have become more active lenders; new CMBS offerings are hitting the street; syndicators are starting to assemble new CDO offerings; and bank loan officers are reporting the first easing of lending standards in years. The ongoing recovery of the capital markets is being aided by an improving U.S. economic recovery. Employment…

Read the full article →

Geithner Blasts Wall Street, Defends Elizabeth Warren, Medicare

May 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — At a Politico breakfast on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner defended consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren, mocked a House GOP vote on the debt ceiling, warned of “several more years” of housing problems and blasted “the financial community” for attempting to block Wall Street reforms. “What happened yesterday was deeply unfair to her,” Geithner said in an hour-long interview with Politico’s Mike Allen, referring to Warren’s appearance before the House Oversight Committee , in which Republicans repeatedly accused her — falsely — of lying. The attacks damaged GOP credibility on oversight functions, Geithner added. The Treasury secretary also recalled his previous appearances before Congress and Warren’s Congressional Oversight Panel, in which Warren repeatedly grilled him about the AIG bailout and the Obama administration’s foreclosure relief program. “Tough” inquiries are good for democracy, Geithner said, but he called the House GOP’s questioning of Warren “political theater.” “The oversight process is a very important thing to preserve and make strong and credible, and I think what you saw yesterday will lead everyone to question whether the oversight process is on the up-and-up.” Geithner also openly mocked an upcoming House vote on the debt ceiling, indicating that backroom discussions with Republican leadership had assured him that the United States will not default on its debts. GOP leadership, he explained, had reached out to Wall Street to assure financiers that its upcoming vote on the debt ceiling was essentially meaningless. The Treasury secretary repeatedly insisted that there is no chance that the U.S. will default on its debts. “This is a funny place, Washington,” Geithner said. “I mean, think about this… House Republicans introduce a bill that they say they’re going to oppose, ask their members to vote against, and then go tell the investors of the world to pay no attention.” On Medicare, Geithner said, “we will not dismantle that basic commitment to seniors,” in the name of deficit reduction, taking a swipe at the budget proposal offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). He noted that cutting Medicare in order to finance tax cuts for the rich was simply not politically plausible. Geithner obliquely referenced the continued foreclosure crisis, acknowledging that, “you still have this huge oversupply of houses” driving down home prices. Foreclosures create more vacant homes, which expands that oversupply. “How worried are you that there is still shake-out to come in housing?” Politico’s Allen asked. Geithner responded, “we’re sort of three or four years into the housing repair, you could say –” “‘Repair,’ that’s a nice word to describe it,” Allen interrupted, prompting laughter from the audience. “We’ve got several more years to go,” Geithner said. The Treasury secretary also criticized members of “the financial community” and Congress for attempting to repeal last year’s Wall Street reform bill, and for attempting to prevent regulatory agencies from implementing new rules. Allen repeatedly asked Geithner to identify specific financial reform obstructionists, but he refused to name names. Geithner also dodged a set of questions from Allen on whether or not criminal activity took place on Wall Street in the run-up to the financial collapse of 2008. “History has not been written,” on the issue, Geithner said. “I’m not really in a position to judge.” When asked which financial firms had been managed the best in the years leading up to the crash, Geithner replied, “I don’t think any of them covered themselves in glory.” “The system we have today is still the system that caused the crisis,” he added.

Read the full article →

CNBC Anchor Mark Haines Dies

May 25, 2011

NEW YORK — Mark Haines, co-anchor of CNBC’s morning “Squawk on the Street” show, died unexpectedly on Tuesday evening, the network said. He was 65. The network said he died in his home. It did not specify the cause of death. Haines worked at CNBC for 22 years after working as a news anchor at TV stations in Philadelphia, New York and Providence, R.I. He was the founding anchor of CNBC’s “Squawk Box” morning show. In 2005, he started co-anchoring “Squawk On The Street,” a 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. show, with Erin Burnett, while “Squawk Box” was pushed to an earlier slot. Burnett recently left CNBC to host a general news show on CNN. CNBC President Mark Hoffman said Haines was “always the unflappable pro.” “He was an authentic voice in business media,” said Eric Jackson, who runs the hedge fund Ironfire Capital. “He resonated with so many people because he would speak out, and with opinion. Too often the media lets the corporate PR army and highly trained CEOs get their points across without question. He wouldn’t let that happen.” WATCH: Barry Ritholtz, head of the research firm Fusion IQ and frequent guest on CNBC, said Haines was “a no-nonsense straight shooter. He knew what questions to ask and how to ask them.” Ritholtz said that the biggest complaint about CNBC in the 1990s was that its anchors cheered on the stock-market bubble. He said the exception was Haines, who was always skeptical. “He was trained as an attorney,” Ritholtz said. “He brought that keen lawyer’s eye to everything he did. It wasn’t something often seen in the financial media.” Haines had a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and was a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association, CNBC said. Haines is also remembered for calling a bottom to the stock market decline on March 10, 2009, his first call of the recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average never closed below its level of March 9. Haines is survived by his wife, Cindy, his son, Matt, and daughter, Meredith. CNBC said funeral arrangements have yet to be made.

Read the full article →

Boston Properties To Restart Midtown Office Tower After Landing Law Firm in 180,000 SF Lease

May 25, 2011

Construction cranes are expected to return to Manhattan’s 55th Street this fall after Boston Properties (NYSE:BXP) said it will resume work on its 1 million-square-foot, 40-story glass tower at 250 West 55th Street after concluding lease negotiations with law firm Morrison & Foerster to occupy seven floors in the development. The law firm leased approximately 180,000 square feet under a 15-year term to become the anchor tenant in the office and…

Read the full article →

NY AG Wants Mortgage Records From 3 Major Banks

May 18, 2011

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is seeking records from three major Wall Street banks as part of a broad investigation into the mortgage crisis that fueled the recession, an official familiar with the issue said Tuesday. Schneiderman is meeting with representatives of the Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, according to the official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Those meetings are expected to focus on mortgage securities operations during the boom on Wall Street that ultimately cost banks billions of dollars. The official said securitization of those mortgages would be an area Schneiderman will examine. Packaging mortgages into securities that investors could buy might have concealed risky loans, something critics on Wall Street said was at the center of the mortgage crisis. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the continuing investigation. There was no immediate comment from the banks. There also was no immediate response to messages left at Schneiderman’s offices about the records search, which was first reported by The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The official told the AP that the records search is part of Schneiderman’s review of factors that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Back then, banks sold bundles of risky mortgages with teaser rates that increased after only a few years. Many borrowers ended up defaulting on the loans when the interest rates spiked. As a result, the value of mortgage securities plummeted. Experts in the area have since said that banks had very little of their own money invested in those mortgages. That led banks to take greater risks, which contributed to the fiscal crisis. ___ Associated Press Business Writer Pallavi Gogoi contributed to this report from New York City.

Read the full article →

David Callahan: Will New York’s Attorney General Finally Nail the Banks?

May 17, 2011

Eric Schneiderman has big shoes to fill as New York State Attorney General. Eliot Spitzer famously used this post to crack down on Wall Street after the excesses of the dot com era, going after the likes of Henry Blodget and AIG’s Hank Greenberg. Schneiderman’s immediate predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, busted up a “pay for play” operation at the New York state pension fund, sending former state comptroller Alan Hevesi and others to prison. So how will Schneiderman make his mark? Well, judging by news reports on Tuesday, the New York AG is hoping to be the first law enforcement official to hold the big banks accountable for the subprime mortgage crisis — starting with Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. This move confirms what many New Yorkers already know about Eric Schneiderman: He is a committed progressive and also a fighter. That’s not so common in a state where top Democrats often act like moderate Republicans. (Exhibit A: Governor Cuomo’s grossly unfair budget that lowers taxes on the rich while enacting draconian cuts to education and health care.) Schneiderman is tapping into the public’s deep frustration that nobody — and I mean nobody — has yet been held criminally responsible for the systematic deception, conflicts of interest, and excessive risk-taking that surrounded the securitization of subprime mortgage debt by Wall Street banks. Schneiderman’s intervention is clearly needed. For various reasons, detailed recently in an extraordinary New York Times investigation , federal authorities have totally dropped the ball in ensuring justice following the financial crisis. In contrast, the Savings and Loans scandal of the 1980s resulted in no fewer than 800 bank officials going to jail. Major figures in the last wave of corporate scandals also went to prison, including Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom, Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco. The Times article notes that while criminal intent is difficult to prove: legal experts point to numerous questionable activities where criminal probes might have borne fruit and possibly still could. Investigators, they argue, could look more deeply at the failure of executives to fully disclose the scope of the risks on their books during the mortgage mania, or the amounts of questionable loans they bundled into securities sold to investors that soured. This is where Schneiderman comes in. Thanks to the Martin Act of 1921, which was revived by Eliot Spitzer, the New York AG has wide powers to go after the banks. The Act includes a broad definition of fraud and, crucially, it doesn’t require prosecutors to prove criminal intent to defraud — which is required under federal securities laws. As a primer on the Martin Act explained in 2004: the only elements needed to establish a Martin Act violation are a misrepresentation or omission of material fact when engaged in to induce or promote the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation or purchase of securities. Proving that banks shaded the truth about mortgage-backed securities should not be very hard. Many on Wall Street suspected or knew these assets were toxic even as they continued to promote them to investors. All Schneiderman needs to do, it would seem, is find evidence of these private doubts and then contrast them to public cheerleading and he has his case. Veteran observers of Wall Street chicanery will recall the simplicity of Eliot Spitzer’s case against the investment analysts Jack Grubman and Henry Blodget. Spitzer subpoenaed the email traffic of these guys and found them ridiculing the very stocks they were promoting at the behest of their investment banker masters. I bet the same kinds of emails can be found about mortgage-backed securities. Now the bad news: Even if Schneiderman finds some smoking guns, it’s unlikely that anyone will face a judge and jury, much less prison, as a result of the AG’s investigation. Why? Because actually trying these cases would be hugely expensive and time consuming, requiring resources that may be beyond the AG’s office. Recall that Enron’s Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay spent as much as $70 million defending themselves against charges that they misrepresented Enron’s financial position and the case dragged on for years before a conviction. Even Eliot Spitzer didn’t bring any Wall Street big shots to trial on criminal charges. Instead, he got them to agree to civil settlements in which they paid large penalties to the government — although not as large as the fortunes they made. Blodget and Grubman both walked away from their confrontations with Spitzer as wealthy men. And, in their settlements with the AG, they didn’t admit to any wrongdoing. If there is justice from Schneiderman’s worthy effort, it is not likely to be satisfying.

Read the full article →

George Goehl: Illinois Taxpayers Demand that Wall Street Pays Their Fair Share

May 13, 2011

Unwilling to be baited into a false debate about budgets that put all the responsibility on hard-working families, more than 500 Illinoisans joined together to launch Make Wall Street Pay Illinois on Thursday. In the face of Illinois’ $6 billion budget deficit, the state says there is no alternative but to continue to cut mental health services, funding for public education, programs for low-income children and care for seniors. Meanwhile, Wall Street and big banks are foreclosing on hundreds of thousands of Illinois families and neglecting to pay their fair share of taxes. Wall Street and big banks like JP Morgan Chase are projected to cost Illinois taxpayers $7.4 billion dollars alone in costs associated with foreclosures by 2012. Yesterday, in response, protestors in six cities delivered the message to JP Morgan Chase and Illinois elected officials that it is time for Wall Street to end the revenue crisis, create jobs and stop illegal foreclosures. “This isn’t a spending crisis. We’re in a revenue crisis because corporations and the rich aren’t paying their fair share. In fact, they are costing us, and we’re picking up their tab. We don’t want to hear about deficits anymore. We found the money and we’re going to get it back,” said Curtis Smith of Lakeview Action Coalition. “Make Wall Street Pay Illinois” was launched through a series of actions at JP Morgan Chase locations and offices of state legislators in downtown Chicago, Skokie, Homewood, Peoria, Springfield and Bloomington yesterday. The campaign presented a plan to get much-needed money out of the hands of Wall Street and big banks and back in the Illinois state budget: Hold hearings on rotten deals, “Interest Rate Swaps” that overcharge interest to the state and our cities and towns. These rip-offs cost the state budget $88 million per year and our cities and towns hundreds of millions more and we want out. The campaign has an online petition asking Illinois State Attorney General Lisa Madigan to investigate bad deals with banks that cost taxpayers millions that they will hand deliver on May 24th. Pass HB 1810 to enact a $500 fee on banks for foreclosing on homeowners. This would fund mediation programs that would allow 75% of homeowners to modify their loans, stabilize communities and put $20 million back into our state budget. Pass HB 1109 to allow communities to charge fees for bank owned vacant property that is not kept up. These fees can be used to keep up property, reduce crime, stabilize home values, return property taxes to local communities and boost the Illinois economy. Get Illinois out of the ridiculous federal rules that allow corporations to write off costs far in advance of spending them. This corporate welfare costs Illinois as much as $1 billion per year. At J.P. Morgan Chase Bank’s main downtown branch, a group of community leaders were able to enter the bank and secure a meeting with VP James Gilliam before they were escorted out of the bank lobby by police who had set up checkpoints in advance of yesterday’s action. These actions are part of a series of campaigns to ensure that big banks pay their fair share for breaking the economy, stopping passing on costs to taxpayers and simply pay their fair share of taxes. Make Wall Street Pay Illinois is now preparing to send a delegation to the Showdown in Ohio at JP Morgan Chase’s May 17th shareholder meeting in Ohio. For more information, visit www.makewallstreetpayillinois.org

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Forget Raj: "Too Big to Fail" is Still "Too Big to Jail"

May 13, 2011

Some of the headlines about the conviction of hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam are misleading or just plain wrong. The Rajaratnam guilty verdict won’t “change the way Wall Street does business” – not where it matters most. Too Big to Fail banks will continue to endanger the economy because they know they’ll be rescued again. And they’ll keep on breaking the law, knowing that even if they’re caught they’ll be protected from prosecution. And yet, instead of being grateful, bankers like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon will continue to publicly sulk about their own perceived mistreatment. That can be annoying, since the U.S. taxpayer saved their corporations, their careers, and their wealth from the consequences of their own mismanagement. But in the end all this public posturing is just a form of territorial primate display, like mandrills showing their brightly-colored posteriors to zoo visitors. These bankers are reminding us that this country’s economy and government are their territory and we’re just trespassing on their mating grounds. To paraphrase an old Sam and Dave song, “It’s their world, we’re just living in it.” Any aggravation felt as a result of their actions can easily be overcome through a rigorous program of spiritual and emotional self-improvement – or so I’m told. Here’s the real problem: If you combine the egocentric and self-absorbed vituperation from these CEOs with the fact that their institutions can continue to commit crimes without fear of prosecution, it means that Wall Street enjoys state of “undiplomatic immunity” that endangers the entire country. Whether it’s Dimon’s whine du jour , Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan’s arrogant sarcasm , or Washington’s love affair with the CEO of serial corporate lawbreaker GE , the arrest of a hedge fund manager or two is insignificant as long as Wall Street’s real power brokers remain immune from investigation. The Rajaratnam conviction doesn’t change the underlying reality: Too Big to Fail is still Too Big to Jail. Something Fishy Rajaratnam sounds like a big fish. He ran a $7 billion hedge fund and was convicted of making $63 million from criminal behavior. But one bank alone, Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase, has already given up three quarters of a billion dollars to settle charges after it systematically bribed government officials in Alabama. Dimon’s Chase has set aside another $2.3 billion to settle additional lawsuits that are expected to arise from other illegal acts on its part. Jack Palance’s line to Billy Crystal in City Slickers was “I cr*p bigger than you.” Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase excretes legal settlements that are bigger than Raj Rajaratnam. How big are the biggest banks in America? Bank of America has $2.27 trillion in assets. JPMorgan Chase has $2.2 trillion. Citigroup has $1.97 trillion. Wells Fargo has $1.2 trillion. Compared to them, Rajaratnam’s hedge fund is just a rounding error. Raj Rajaratnam isn’t a big fish. He’s a guppy. Busting up the wrong gang This conviction is ” just the start, ” we’re told. Other members of Rajaratnam’s Galleon fund have been targeted, along with Silicon Valley executives and employees of other investment funds. And we’re told that the SEC’s investigation is broadening to address the idea of ” expert networks ” that link industry professionals (i.e., in technology) with hedge fund investors. To be sure, “expert networks” are dubious at best and downright illegal at worst. Business Insider did a useful round-up of firms who advertise themselves with phrases like these: “a global knowledge broker connecting professionals seeking specialist knowledge with those possessing it” …”connects the investment community and advisory firms with leading industry specialists around the globe in order to access key market information” … “the premier provider of expert consultation, market intelligence, advisory services, investment, and events for the China market.” To the untrained eye, that sounds a lot like insider trading. And to the trained eye it sounds a lot like insider trading. A very gray, very faint line divides “networking between the investment community and experts in the industry” and the illegal exchange of information between investors and experts. And it can be crossed in a heartbeat. In can be crossed in the course of a four or five-sentence answer that a “industry specialist” gives to a question from “a member of the investment community.” So it’s worth investigating. But it’s not the source of our economy’s systematic danger … or its systematic corruption. The Rajaratnam conviction may be “just the start” of something useful. But it’s not going to fix our worst problems. Big and Bad We never learned our lesson from the 2008 crisis. Instead of ending Too Big to Fail, the government has encouraged it. It’s been helping larger banks acquire small ones. There were 157 bank failures last year, and there are now roughly half as many banks in the U.S. as there were 20 years ago. And most industry experts agree that consolidation in the banking industry will continue. What’s much worse is the fact that the top banks are getting bigger, not smaller. The “Big Four” – Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo – had 32% of the market before the 2008 collapse. Afterwards they had 39%, and they continue to grow. And these corporations are all serial outlaws. Each of them has been deeply implicated in widespread mortgage fraud that includes the forging of court documents, a crime for which the Attorneys General for fifty states are reportedly reducing a proposed slap on the wrist to a proposed gentle kiss on the back of the hand. We’ve already described some of the crimes committed by Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase. The number of criminal indictments that resulted? Zero. Another “Big Four” bank, Wells Fargo, systematically laundered drug money from the cartels that have murdered 35,000 people in Mexico. Number of criminal indictments? Zero. Citigroup violated SEC law regarding corporate disclosures, engaged in illegal rate activity toward credit card customers, and is under investigation for aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme. Number of criminal indictments? Zero. (A more detailed description of these banks and their rap sheets can be found here .) Get Real So forget all of those headlines that say Raj Rajaratnam’s conviction will “change everything.” The government is still targeting small fry and trying to convince the public it’s getting the people who have ruined their lives. It’s not. Justice won’t be served, and we won’t be protected from the next crisis, until executives from the major U.S. banks are seriously investigated for their roles in the criminal behavior that has already been admitted to and addressed with a wave of large financial settlements. It’s time to get real about Wall Street crime, before it brings down the economy again. And it’s time to end Too Big to Fail. If Raj Rajaratnam’s conviction fails to convince the public that the government’s cracking down on bad bankers, they’ll need another target for the public’s wrath. Who knows? Maybe they’ll arrest Martha Stewart again. Or they can get serious, and investigate the people whose crimes have done so much damage and may very well do more in the years to come. As Martha might say, that would be a good thing. ____________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Gordon Whitman: Day of Reckoning Coming Soon on Foreclosure Scandal

May 12, 2011

This is going to come as a big shock: Wall Street banks are manipulating the media in their campaign to avoid responsibility for throwing millions of people out of their homes and sending our economy into a tailspin. For months, the attorneys general from all 50 states have been investigating the big banks for fraudulent, criminal, and generally unconscionable behavior in their handling of mortgages and foreclosures across the country. On May 11, the American Banker which serves as a mouthpiece for Wall Street, reported incorrectly that the Attorneys General investigating dropped principal reduction from the terms of an emerging settlement. Principal reduction means adjusting mortgages to reflect homes’ current values — values reflecting the crash caused by the banks. Principal reduction would help reset the housing market and get our economy back on track, and it represents an essential component of a fair settlement. Fortunately, the story being peddled by the American Banker is inaccurate. Reports in the Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post , suggest that the attorneys general haven’t given up on this key opportunity to hold big banks accountable and provide justice for millions of homeowners. But this effort to spread misinformation about principal reduction being off the table is part of a coordinated effort by Wall Street banks to confuse the public and push off the day of reckoning on their fraudulent foreclosures practices. This week, Zillow issued a report showing that housing values fell in the first quarter of 2011 in the biggest drop since 2008. A full 28 percent of mortgage holders in the U.S. — more than one quarter — now owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth. The primary cause for the continued slide in housing values? It’s the glut of foreclosed homes now flooding the market, thanks to the big banks’ foreclosure frenzy. The good news is that while Wall Street banks have been putting a full court press on the attorneys general to water down an eventual settlement, there’s been a coordinated national campaign to shine a light on the negotiations and make sure that homeowners and communities are protected. Groups like PICO, Alliance for a Just Society and National People’s Action have come together to fight against the big banks and for American families. To ramp up our campaign, we have formed The New Bottom Line — a coalition of community organizations, congregations, labor unions, and individuals working together to build a movement that puts the needs struggling and middle-class families and communities ahead the interests of Wall Street. In San Francisco on May 3, homeowners, clergy, and community leaders converged on the Wells Fargo shareholder meeting , demanding a new bottom line – one that puts homeowners and communities ahead of bank profiteering. They directly challenged Wells CEO John Stumpf to drop his opposition to loan modifications. This week in North Carolina, homeowners, clergy, community leaders and others descended on the Bank of America shareholder meeting to protest the big bank’s fraudulent handling of mortgages. In New York City, people are taking back Wall Street in a weeklong series of events targeting bank practices that driven cities and states into fiscal crisis. In coming days, community and faith leaders will be taking the same message and passion to the J.P. Morgan Chase shareholder meeting . Until banks are held accountable, these actions will continue. As of May 11, 2011, it’s been 864 days since the big banks caused our financial system to implode, and despite causing massive hardship for American families, these mega financial institutions have never wanted to be held accountable for anything. Fixing the mess they created in the housing market is no exception. We need our attorneys general to stand with homeowners, community leaders, clergy, and small businesses to hold banks accountable – not to the banks’ profit but to our new bottom line that puts people first. For more information and to join The New Bottom Line campaign, go to www.newbottomline.com .

Read the full article →

Rajaratnam Conviction Serves As Powerful Warning Shot On Wall Street

May 11, 2011

NEW YORK — The conviction of billionaire hedge fund manger Raj Rajaratnam on all 14 counts in a sprawling, unprecedented insider trading case will serve as a powerful warning shot to Wall Street, legal and financial experts say. The case against Rajaratnam, formerly the head of the Galleon Group, centered on an extensive network of tips he received over the course of at least six years, giving his hedge fund unauthorized insight into pending mergers and acquisitions, upcoming quarterly earnings at other companies and other transactions. The government estimated that Rajaratnam’s firm, once one of Wall Street’s biggest hedge funds, netted more than $63 million in gains and avoided losses over the time period. Experts said that Rajaratnam’s offense was so egregious that his conviction doesn’t represent a shift in how the law defines insider trading, but rather, the government’s willingness and ability to go after and convict such offenses. “This was the least gray case I’ve ever seen. There was overwhelming evidence,” said John C. Coffee, Law Professor at Columbia University and director of its Center on Corporate Governance. Rajaratnam plans to appeal the case because evidence was obtained through wire-taps and not, Coffee points out, because of the content of the charges themselves. “The definition of insider trading is not really involved with this case,” he said. “It is a case about whether or not the evidence was lawfully obtained.” The billion dollar question for investors and analysts is whether the conviction will cause hedge funds — particularly those that use expert networks to help determine investing decisions — to fundamentally reassess the way they operate? “For well-counseled hedge funds, that reassessment began many many months ago,” said Joseph A. Grundfest, a Professor of Law and Business at Standford University who previously served as a commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Grundfest said hedge funds he does business with began increasing transparency and scrutinizing the use of expert networks when Rajaratnam was arrested and charged with more than a dozen securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities in October, 2009. At that time, the U.S. Attorney’s Office called the case “the largest hedge fund insider trading case in history.” The case also marked the first time that wiretaps were used as part of a major insider trading investigation. More than 40 recordings collected over the years figured heavily into the case against Rajaratnam, including a tape showing that he had received information about an expected quarterly loss at Goldman Sachs from Goldman board member Rajat Gupta. Some of the most significant testimony in the trial came from Anil Kumar, a former McKinsey & Co. consultant who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and securities fraud and later agreed to cooperate with the government in the case. According to the Wall Street Journal : Mr. Kumar’s four days of testimony provided the cornerstone of the government’s case, including damaging testimony from the consultant that he was paid $500,000 a year by Mr. Rajaratnam through an offshore account to an account in his housekeeper’s name in exchange for insider tips. One such tip, involving the acquisition of ATI Technologies Inc. by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. in 2006, generated Galleon profits of nearly $23 million. The strength of the conviction on all counts serves, Grundfest says, as a game-changer and a powerful bargaining tool for the government in all future cases of insider trading. “Now, the U.S. attorney will be able to sit down with the defendant and say [two] word[s]: Raj Rajaratnam. And that changes the complexion of the conversation. The government has now demonstrated that in situations that it has wiretaps and cooperating witnesses, they can convict.” Not everyone is convinced of the verdict’s power on Wall Street. Charles Ferguson, director of the Academy Award-winning Inside Job , said that the focus on Rajaratnam’s trial is misguided. “The total amounts of money and the consequences in insider trading are trivial,” says Ferguson, according to The New York Times , “compared to the damage caused by the behavior that caused the financial crisis[.]” But many argue that the deterrence factor of a criminal conviction — Rajaratnam faces a minimum of 15-1/2 years — is symbolically huge. “The one thing we do know is that finance professionals are uniquely susceptible to general deterrents,” said Coffee. “The street criminal may have very little alternative — it’s either sell drugs or stay poor — but the person running a hedge fund sees the high risks involved that this case dramatically communicates. Looking at this case, he learns that expert networks that continue for a while have a good chance of getting revealed.” Rajaratnam is only one of 26 people charged in the Galleon case so far, and a second trial of three former securities traders, including a former Galleon hedge employee, is scheduled to start next week. Coffee expects that we will see more convictions in the coming months. As for whether there are hedge fund managers feeling anxious about the morning’s news, Coffee put it simply: “This is good news for honest expert network firms, bad news for those that were crossing the line. Good news for hedge funds not seeking insider information, bad news for those that were,” Coffee said. “Professionals learn what is lawful based on who goes to prison and for what. This is a vivid message that you can go to prison for insider trading even if you are a sophicsticated business professional.” After the financial crisis, Bernie Madoff, years of slow economic growth and high unemployment, this is a message that will be likely welcomed by many, both on Wall Street and off. “We’ve just been bombarded with a whole seiries of ponzi schemes, meltdowns and people making an enormous amount of money,” said David Larcker, professor of accounting at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and author of Corporate Governance Matters. “The government is saying here ‘look, let’s pull it back to the middle here and show the population that we are serious about this — that you can’t just do anything you want.’”

Read the full article →

Mike Lux: Democrats and Wall Street

May 6, 2011

The Republicans in the Senate have thrown down the gauntlet: 44 Republican senators have signed a letter saying they won’t confirm anyone — anyone at all — to be the director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless the new agency is made toothless. It is this kind of way-over-the-top overreaching that has hurt Republican governors like Walker and Kasich so badly because of their attempt to wipe out public-sector unions, and has made the Ryan budget the most unpopular bill in front of Congress in years. When you are so clearly willing to do everything the Wall Street bankers could ever ask, you paint a very big target on your back. Democrats should seize this opportunity and strike while the iron is hot, just as they did in standing up to Walker, Kasich, and Ryan. Being willing to stand tall and fight back against those unpopular right-wing policies, and the moneymen behind them like the Koch brothers, has already paid off enormously for Democrats. Just think how picking a fight with the most unpopular entity in America (now that Osama bin Laden is dead) — the big banks on Wall Street — could help them politically. The President should immediately announce he is appointing Elizabeth Warren as director of the CFPB, and when the next recess comes, immediately put her in as a recess appointment. There is no longer any reason not to, because the Republicans gave us our opening: if they are going to oppose anyone no matter how weak in that job, there is no reason to offer a compromise candidate. Obama should just give it to the person who would be the best director, which Elizabeth would clearly be. Having a big blow-up with Republicans, with us fighting for consumers and homeowners and them fighting for the banks, would be a great political fight to have. I suspect at the end of the day, that will be the conclusion the Obama team comes to as well, although they are taking their own sweet time on this CFPB decision. And their options of who to appoint got narrowed a lot by that Senate GOP too. The White House already has had several feelers rejected by candidates who didn’t want to be seen as taking the job Warren should have, which is a big factor in making Elizabeth’s appointment more and more likely. The bottom line is that this letter probably just sealed the deal for her getting the job, so we can once again thank overreaching Republicans for helping get something good done. Unfortunately, though, this rather obvious notion of picking fights with incredibly unpopular Wall Street bankers isn’t a universally held Democratic strategy. Take a look at the dynamics on a couple of other fronts. The first example is how the swipe-fee issue still has some Democrats being dumb in their politics. I got involved in this issue during last year’s financial-reform battle, forming a rather unusual (okay, extremely unusual) alliance with retailers and merchants. Dick Durbin offered an amendment that would require the Federal Reserve to provide some regulation of debit card swipe fees so that the big banks who thoroughly dominate this market (Visa and MasterCard, which are subsidiaries of the big banks, represent more than 80 percent of the debit card market) couldn’t just charge whatever outrageous swipe fees they wanted to every small businessperson and non-profit group that let customers use debit cards. The politics of this issue seemed easy to me: the Big Banks vs. Main Street Businesses and Consumers. And it was easy the first time around: when Durbin offered his amendment 63 Senators voted for it, including some Republicans. But the big banks have a ton of money, lobbyists, and muscle — and they keep chipping away at this. They have convinced a lot of Democrats to go over to their side. An organization I chair, American Family Voices , recently came out with and ad that got some notice because it targeted some Democrats, including DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But if Democrats took the side of small businesses and consumers, and left helping Wall Street bankers to Republicans, the politics of this issue would be a lot cleaner. The second issue is the foreclosure fraud issue. The big banks have run roughshod over hard-pressed homeowners, abusing the foreclosure process to the point where they have had a series of court decisions go against them. The 50 attorneys general and multiple federal agencies have been negotiating with the big banks on this issue, but the Obama administration has been way too weak in helping underwater homeowners press for mortgage write-downs. The administration refused to issue a moratorium on foreclosures in spite of all the problems with the banks that were handling them, Treasury’s HAMP program has been a disaster, and the administration’s acting head of the critically important OCC regulatory agency has been completely in bed with Wall Street bankers on housing and many other issues. The Obama administration should be taking on the big banks on foreclosures, not coddling them. I am a Democrat because our party has historically been on the side of middle-class workers, homeowners, consumers, and small businesses against wealthy special interests like Wall Street bankers. Politically and policywise, we should be clearly, cleanly, and strongly on the side of the former, and not confuse voters by straddling both sides of the issue. I will always be a Democrat because we are the only party that would ever appoint someone like Elizabeth Warren to office, or pass legislation like the CFPB and swipe-fee regulation, but when we waver on these kinds of things, we lose our way politically as well. It is time for Democrats to take a clear side for the middle class, and let the Republicans choke on having to be on Wall Street’s side.

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: Big Bank Backlash: From Coast to Coast People are Moving their Money

May 6, 2011

As the economy continues to stutter and new unemployment claims surge to an eight month high, it hasn’t escaped the notice of people on Main Street that the folks on Wall Street are back in the black. According to Fortune magazine , profits of the 500 largest U.S. corporations have surged 81 percent this past year. FORTUNE editors write, “We’ve rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans.” When Fortune is standing up for the workers, you know it’s bad. The Big Lie As the United States splinters further into two worlds, the American people have not forgotten who got us into this mess in the first place. They are refusing to buy the big lie peddled by new Republican Governors, like Scott Walker in Wisconsin or John Kasich in Ohio, that greedy public sector workers are to blame for our economic woes. They know who inflated the housing bubble and played both sides with credit default swaps, and it wasn’t teachers, firefighters or snowplow drivers. From San Francisco to Wall Street people are taking to the streets reminding governors and their friends on Wall Street and that they remember very well who tanked the global economy putting more than 8 million Americans out of work and creating a revenue crisis for many states. Hundreds protested inside and outside the Wells Fargo shareholder’s meeting in San Francisco this week, and the big bank backlash is gaining steam. Cheeseheads Say Move Your Money from M&I Bank Wisconsin State AFL-CIO is the latest in a wave of businesses, organizations, and individuals who are closing their accounts with M&I Bank . Yesterday the federation closed out a $100,000 CD it held at M&I. Taxpayers bailed out M&I with $1.7 billion of TARP funds. Instead of repaying the money, M&I executives and employees gave $54,000 in political contributions to Governor Scott Walker. Plus, M&I is planning on paying its failed executives $71 millions in bonuses this year when the bank is sold to the Canadian-owned Harris Bank and will close its Milwaukee headquarters. Mark Furlong the CEO of M&I is scheduled to receive $24 million bonus package after the bank is sold. In a letter to Furlong, Stephanie Bloomingdale, Secretary-Treasurer, WI AFL-CIO puts it bluntly: “By contributing money to Scott Walker and other Republicans, you have taken part in the destruction of Wisconsin’s middle class. As a company entirely dependent on American taxpayers for its survival, M&I owes its allegiance to those taxpayers… We care about our families and communities, while you care only about your bottom line. Here’s our bottom line: We’re moving our money.” The AFL-CIO joins the firefighters the teachers, church groups and hundreds of individual who have decided to chose a new bank. More actions are planned. If you are interested in moving your money, you can find a new bank or credit union at the Move Your Money site of the Huffington Post. Buckeyes Tell JPMorgan Chase to Stop the Foreclosures Ohioans will greet Jamie Dimon, “the most dangerous banker in the world,” at J PMorgan Chase’s annual shareholder’s meeting in Columbus, OH. After taking $25 billion in TARP bailout money and after acquiring Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual, Jamie Dimon thinks that the big banks aren’t big enough and neither is his bonus. In 2010, his total compensation topped $28 million. Hard to imagine what the spinmeisters were thinking when they advised Dimon to flee Wall Street for Ohio. Ohio is one of the states hardest hit by the epidemic of foreclosures and joblessness caused by Wall Street. It is a state where unions have been under attack, and where hard-won labor rights that built the middle class have been stripped away from public sector workers. Next week National People’s Action will release a study showing a projected one out of every ten homes in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus received a foreclosure filing since the start of the housing crisis. Wall Street firms have long been big backers of Kasich. According to Ohio Citizen Action, Chase employees gave $29,000 to Kasich’s gubernatorial campaign. “Protesters will deliver a message to Wall Street – it is time for big banks like JPMorgan Chase to stop the foreclosures, pay their fair share, create jobs, and end the revenue crisis,” says Adam Keck, Senior Organizer, Mahoning Valley Organizing Collaborative. You are invited to join the Buckeyes in Columbus on May 17th and you can find more information at: Showdown in America . The Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy tracks corporate spin and spinmeisters at PRWatch.org.

Read the full article →

Daniel Dicker: How To Drop Gas Prices By a Dollar — Overnight

April 27, 2011

Want to see lower prices at the pumps? Obama says there’s “no silver bullet,” while Boehner considers removing tax subsidies to big oil. Romney and Pawlenty take up the cry of “drill, baby, drill,” but even unrestricted access to U.S. reserves would only result in another 500,000 barrels a day at the outside, a piddling help to our country that consumes 21 million barrels a day. The bottom line is, none of those ideas will help us lower gas prices in the short term. How about a ban on all long-only commodity funds (LOCFs) and commodity ETFs instead? I believe such a bill supporting the liquidation of these funds could knock a dollar a gallon off the price at the pumps practically overnight. For the past ten years, but particularly in the last five, Wall Street has created and sold commodity index funds, ETFs, hedge funds and online trading to compel investors into buying oil as if it were a stock or a bond, even though oil is anything but. They’ve had incredible success: Since 2003, index investment into commodities, overwhelmingly directed at oil, has grown from virtually zero to now top $350 billion dollars. ETFs have increased by $50 billion in the last year alone and commodity hedge funds, as well as individuals investing in oil, have ballooned similarly. But oil is not like a stock. Commodity markets require equal amounts of sellers to match the number of buyers, and this one-sided appetite to own oil has had one overwhelming effect: driving prices through the roof. And who’s paying for it? It’s not just the consumer who suffers from the wagering taking place with oil. More than 50% of the businesses listed on the New York Stock Exchange have energy as their primary input cost. For businesses both small and large, hyped energy prices threaten our tenuous recovery by stifling new hiring and growth. The high costs of imported oil only serve to fill Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds with U.S. capital. A recent shocking report from Morgan Stanley puts the total “oil bill” of current crude prices at $2.4 trillion dollars or 3.7% of the total GDP of oil importing countries. For Wall Street, this is just collateral damage. They continue to fight for these new instruments and new markets for the same reasons they created and traded sub-prime mortgage securities and credit default swaps: Wall Street, and particularly the major investment banks, are terrific at trading off of and posting huge profits from these money flows. What can be done to stop this? What’s clear is that oil is just too important a resource — to every aspect of our lives — to be subject to the same financial manipulations as other investment assets like stocks and bonds. Besides just the costs for gas and heat, energy is the main component cost for processing foods and drugs, plastics and aluminum – just about everything we depend upon. A quick way to promote fairer prices would be a direct ban on commodity indexes and ETFs that use futures and swaps. Not one dollar invested in any of these instruments could be mistaken for a “hedge” — they’re all just bets. Our priorities should be clear and non-partisan: the right to bet on oil prices should be less important than the right of consumers and businesses to a fair and honest price. So far, however, this measure to try and control some of the money flowing into oil is not even being discussed. And it’s not a change that anyone should expect any time soon. Wall Street influence in Washington is powerfully strong. Rolling back the clock on financial “innovations” that benefit traders is an uphill battle. Without further action, however, higher oil prices become a self-fulfilling prophecy: rising prices inspire more money to bet on rising prices. As early as this summer, we could be looking at $5 a gallon gas.

Read the full article →

Georges Ugeux: Has Wall Street Lost It’s Way?

April 26, 2011

“Markets are always right.” This assertion loved by market analysts is increasingly losing its relevance. In recent years, we have seen that Wall Street was able to be heavily mistaken. The Dow Jones gained 30% since the lowest level of last year, July 6th. What concerns me most is the evolution since the beginning of this year. The Dow Jones has risen approximately 9%. On an annual basis, this would be somewhere above 30%. However, since the beginning of the year, we had a string of bad news. • Popular uprisings across the Middle East • A tsunami followed by a nuclear crisis that seriously weakens the Japanese economy • A rise of 40% of the yield 10-year US Treasury bonds, from 2.5% to 3.5%, over the last six months • A doubling of the yields of the obligations of countries in difficulty – with Greece’s 2-year bonds yielding almost 24% • A negative outlook on the United States AAA rating by Standard & Poor’s • Mediocre corporate results for the first quarter of 2011 in the USA • A 20% increase in food prices worldwide • A nearly 20% increase in the price of gasoline worldwide • A weakening US dollar against all key currencies Inflation is at our doors, we are going through democratic crises, Europe and the United States have become vulnerable, and interest rates are rising. Each of these factors alone would negatively influence the investment climate and lead Wall Street to decline. All of them combined have the potential to provoke a market collapse. This collective denial, which is reminiscent of 2007, gives the distinct impression that stock markets have lost all reason. Time has come to protect capital. We know what kind of crises Wall Street denials can provoke. Large financial institutions are now in a position to send a signal to sell shares, without being accused of lack of civic-mindedness, sense of responsibility, or both. This is the extent of the independence of financial advice that they publish. Today Equilar , a compensation analyst, reported that the S&P American CEO’s bonus increased 43% between 2009 and 2010, and that their average salary ($ 9 million) increased by 28%. The first press conference on Wednesday, of the President of the Federal Reserve, will most likely tell us nothing more than what we already know. It is good news for the “core inflation” level, namely the Consumer Price Index, without taking into account the price of energy or food ! This betrays the actual purchasing power of the consumers. Bernanke’s optimism will not reassure us: he has a track record for not seeing a crisis coming even if it’s the size of an iceberg. The current euphoria on Wall Street is definitely one of the most compelling signs of a selling opportunity in a long time.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The Wageless Recovery

April 26, 2011

This week’s biggest economic show occurs tomorrow (Wednesday) when Fed chair Ben Bernanke steps in front of the cameras for the Fed’s first-ever news conference. The question on everyone’s mind: Will the Fed signal it’s now more worried about inflation than recession? Much of Wall Street thinks inflation is now the biggest threat to the U.S. economy. As has been the case in the past, the Street is dead wrong. The biggest threat is falling into another recession. The most significant economic news from the first quarter of 2011 is the decline in real wages. That’s unusual in a recovery, to say the least. But it’s easily explained this time around. In order to keep the jobs they have, millions of Americans are accepting shrinking paychecks. If they’ve been fired, the only way they can land a new job is to accept even smaller ones. The wage squeeze is putting most households in a double bind. Before the recession, they’d been able to pay the bills because they had two paychecks. Now, they’re likely to have one-and-a half, or just one, and it’s shrinking. Add to this the continuing decline in the value of the biggest asset most people own – their homes — and what do you get? Consumers who won’t and can’t buy enough to keep the economy going. That spells recession. Why doesn’t Wall Street get it? For one thing, because lenders always worry more about inflation than borrowers — and, in general, the wealthier members of a society tend to lend their money to people who are poorer than they are. But Wall Street’s inflation fears are also being stoked by several specifics. First are price upswings in food and energy. The Street doesn’t seem to understand that when most peoples’ wages are dropping, additional dollars they spend on groceries and at the gas pump means fewer dollars they have left to spend in the rest of the economy. Rather than cause inflation, this is likely to lead to more job losses. The Street is also worried that the Fed’s easy money policies are pushing the dollar down and thereby fueling inflation – as everything we buy abroad becomes more expensive. But if wages are stuck in the mud and everything we buy abroad costs more, Americans have even fewer dollars to spend. This also spells recession, not inflation. Finally, the Street worries that if Democrats and Republicans fail to agree to a plan to cut the budget deficit, the credit-worthiness of the United States as a whole will be in jeopardy – causing interest rates to rocket and inflation to explode. Standard & Poors, the erstwhile credit-rating agency, has already sounded the alarm. The Street has it backwards. Over the long term, the deficit does have to be tackled. But not now. When job growth remains tepid, when wages are dropping, and when the value of most households’ major asset is declining, government has to step in to maintain overall demand. This is the worst possible time to cut public spending or reduce the money supply. The biggest irony is that the Street is doing wonderfully well right now, in contrast to most Americans. Corporate profits for the first quarter of the year are way up. That’s largely because corporate payrolls are down. Payrolls are down because big companies have been shifting much of their work abroad where business is booming. The Commerce Department recently reported that over the last decade American multinationals (essentially all large American corporations) eliminated 2.9 million American jobs while adding 2.4 million abroad. What the Commerce Department didn’t say is the pace is picking up. In 2000, 30 percent of GE’s business was overseas and 46 percent of its employees; now 60 percent of its business is outside the U.S., as are 54 percent of its employees. Over the past five years, Oracle added twice as many workers overseas as in the US; 63 percent of its employees now work abroad. Corporations are simultaneously finding ways to cut the pay of their remaining U.S. workers — not just threatening job losses if they don’t agree to the cuts, but also automating the work or sending it to non-union states. (The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, an unremittingly reliable barometer of Street thought, argued earlier this week that such states offer workers the freedom to choose whether to join a union — in reality, the freedom to lose even more bargaining power and be forced to accept even lower wages.) America’s jobless recovery is becoming a wageless recovery. That puts the odds of another recession greater than the risk of inflation. Wall Street and its representatives in Washington don’t understand — or don’t want to. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Lost Japan Sales Cut Into Profits Of U.S. Companies

April 26, 2011

NEW YORK (Phil Wahba) – The Japan earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis are cutting into the sales and profits of U.S. companies that serve Japanese consumers, from Coca Cola (KO.N) to Coach Inc (COH.N) and 3M (MMM.N). Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, was stagnating economically before the March 11 earthquake, but it remains a major market for many U.S. companies, particularly consumer product makers and store chains. Coach, known for its fancy leather handbags, gets nearly one-fifth of its sales from Japan. But the aftermath of last month’s earthquake and the nuclear disaster which followed could cost it between 2 and 3 cents in profit per share in the current quarter, or roughly 5 percent of Wall Street’s profit forecast. Coke reported results that disappointed Wall Street in part because of lost revenue in Japan, and the soft-drink maker said disruptions to its supply chain are hampering the bottler’s ability to produce its beverages in time for the summer. “Overall, I think the supply chain is still stressed in Japan in terms of being able to supply the market,” Coke Chief Executive Muhtar Kent told analysts on a conference call. Coke said the events could cut earnings per share by another 2 to 4 cents for the rest of the fiscal year. Wall Street is expecting Coke profits of $3.01 per share in the year’s three remaining quarters, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. Even companies that produce relatively few items sold directly to people in Japan are feeling the impact as Japanese manufacturing output has taken a hit. Industrial and consumer goods conglomerate 3M Co (MMM.N) has a higher exposure to Japan than most of its industrial peers, with 9 percent of its sales generated there. 3M sells to auto and electronics businesses in Japan that have seen production disruptions since the March disasters. The maker of Scotch tape, Post-It notes, industrial abrasives and health-care and electronics products, said the Japan crisis cut first-quarter earnings by about 3 cents a share and will reduce full-year profit by 10 cents to 13 cents a share. Wall Street analysts expect a full-year profit of $6.22 per share. Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N) expects to lose about $75 million in Japanese business in the current quarter. The reduced profit forecasts on Tuesday from Coach, Coke and 3M echoed those in recent weeks from jeweler Tiffany & Co (TIF.N) and clothing store chain Gap Inc, (GPS.N) which still get the bulk of their Asian sales in Japan even as they eye fast-growing China. Yet, for all the disruption, the damage has been relatively contained. “We don’t see any long-term damage. In fact our business has rebounded in our full-price locations,” Coach CEO Lew Frankfort told Reuters. “We believe Japan will return to normal.” (Additional reporting by Martinne Geller and Nick Zieminski in New York and Karen Jacobs in Atlanta. Editing by Robert MacMillan) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

CHART: Bloggers’ Predictions Beat Wall Street Professionals

April 25, 2011

When it comes to Apple’s stock, the advice of financial bloggers may be more reliable than tips from professional analysts. On Wednesday, Apple reported a second-quarter net profit of $5.99 billion, or $6.40 per share. CNN Money, however, tracked revenue predictions, and Apple made $24.67 billion of it in the second fiscal quarter. They found amateur bloggers were much more bullish on Apple than their professional counterparts. Of the 58 analysts surveyed, in fact, bloggers on average predicted Apple would generate 8.53 percent more revenue than Wall Street professionals. That optimism, it turns, out was also more accurate. Predicting the tech giant would generate $25.25 billion in revenue, bloggers’ estimates overshot Apple’s results by $58 million on average. The average Wall Street prediction, on the other hand, was low by $1.4 billion. The below HuffPost chart compares blogger predictions (blue) with Wall Street analysts (orange). The horizontal dotted line indicates Apple’s actual reported revenue: AAPL Q2 Forecast Accuracy Powered by Tableau

Read the full article →

Insider Trading: ‘I Didn’t Think Anyone Would Notice’

April 16, 2011

LONG BEACH, N.Y.–Kenneth T. Robinson knew he should walk away. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he says he just couldn’t stop trafficking in insider-trading tips.

Read the full article →

Insider Trading: ‘I Didn’t Think Anyone Would Notice’

April 16, 2011

LONG BEACH, N.Y.–Kenneth T. Robinson knew he should walk away. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he says he just couldn’t stop trafficking in insider-trading tips.

Read the full article →

Dal LaMagna: Google Drops $48. I’m Pissed.

April 16, 2011

Let’s start with the fact that I own 5,000 shares of Google. Google makes 18% more money on 27% more sales the first quarter of 2011 than the first quarter of 2010 — and Wall Street takes the value of the stock down $48 ! What happened to me is somewhat annoying because finally, I stopped trading the stock market. Instead, I’m running my own business and investing in businesses creating well-paying jobs. The money I put in the market is for holding stocks in companies I want to support — not trade. Had I been trading and paying attention, I would not have missed that Google was announcing its earnings yesterday. I might have sold my position. Then, at the end of today I could have bought it back $48 lower — trading. As I’ve said I’m not trading, I’m a good patriotic American helping to create jobs for the almost 15 million Americans still unemployed. Then I have to watch my Google stock drops $250,000 in one day. That’s annoying. The main reason I am pissed is that Wall Street motivates job destruction rather than job creation. If Larry Page (co-founder and new CEO of Google) were the typical Fortune Five Hundred CEO, he would be laying off employees; his Board of Directors would be giving him a big bonus; Wall Street would be running up the value of Google’s stock. Larry Page is hiring people — over 6,000 people — yet Wall Street runs down Google’s stock 8%.

Read the full article →

Senate Panel Slams Goldman Sachs

April 14, 2011

April 14, 2011 12:38:56 AM By Kevin Drawbaugh WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In the most damning official U.S. report yet produced on Wall Street’s role in the financial crisis, a Senate panel accused powerhouse Goldman Sachs of misleading clients and manipulating markets, while also condemning greed, weak regulation and conflicts of interest throughout the financial system. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, one of Capitol Hill’s most feared panels, has a history with Goldman Sachs. He clashed publicly with its Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein a year ago at a hearing on the crisis. The Democratic lawmaker again tore into Goldman at a press briefing on his panel’s 639-page report, which is based on a review of tens of millions of documents over two years. Levin accused Goldman of profiting at clients’ expense as the mortgage market crashed in 2007. “In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled Congress,” he said, reading glasses perched as ever on the tip of his nose. A Goldman Sachs spokesman said, “While we disagree with many of the conclusions of the report, we take seriously the issues explored by the subcommittee.” The panel’s report is harder hitting than one issued in January by the government-appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which “didn’t report anything of significance,” Republican Senator Tom Coburn said at the briefing. More than two years since the crisis peaked, denunciations of Wall Street misconduct are less often heard on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers focused on fiscal issues. But Coburn joined Levin at Wednesday’s bipartisan briefing, firing his own sharp attacks on the financial industry. “Blame for this mess lies everywhere — from federal regulators who cast a blind eye, Wall Street bankers who let greed run wild, and members of Congress who failed to provide oversight,” said Coburn, the subcommittee’s top Republican. “It shows without a doubt the lack of ethics in some of our financial institutions who embraced known conflicts of interest to accomplish wealth for themselves, not caring about the outcome for their customers,” he said. The Levin-Coburn report criticized not only Goldman, but Deutsche Bank, the former Washington Mutual Bank, the U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision and credit rating agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. “We will be referring this matter to the Justice Department and to the SEC,” Levin said at the briefing, though he did not elaborate. A spokesman later said, “The subcommittee does not intend to reveal the specifics of any referral.” The report offered 19 recommendations for reform going beyond changes already enacted after the crisis in 2010′s Dodd-Frank Wall Street and banking regulation overhaul. Case studies from the go-go years of the real estate bubble formed the bulk of the report, which said a runaway mortgage securitization machine churned out abusive loans, toxic securities, and big fees for lenders and Wall Street. It cited internal emails by Wall Street executives that described mortgage-backed securities underlying many collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, as “crap” and “pigs.” It said Washington Mutual — which became the largest failed bank in U.S. history in 2008 — embraced a high-risk home loan strategy in 2005 while its own top executives were warning of a bubble that “will come back to haunt us.” The U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision — which will be shut down and merged into another agency under 2010′s Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul — logged 500 serious deficiencies at Washington Mutual from 2003-2008, but no crackdown followed, the report said. Mass downgrades of mortgage-related investments in July 2007 by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s constituted “the most immediate cause of the financial crisis,” it said. Investment banks, it said, charged $1 million to $8 million in fees to construct, underwrite and sell a mortgage-backed security in the bubble, and $5 million to $10 million per CDO. As for Goldman, the subcommittee said, the firm “used net short positions to benefit from the downturn in the mortgage market.” It said Goldman designed, marketed, and sold CDOs in ways that created conflicts of interest with clients, while also at times providing the bank with profits “from the same products that caused substantial losses for its clients.” (Additional reporting by Lauren LaCapra and Kim Dixon; Editing Steve Orlofsky) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Wal-Mart Wants You to Pay Online Sales Tax

April 11, 2011

Giant retailers like Wal-Mart and Target are using mom and pop stores as human shields in their battle against Amazon.com over taxing online sales. The powerful real estate investment trusts that build bricks-and-mortar malls, along with the big box stores they rent or sell to, now want you to pay a sales tax on Internet purchases. And its being done in the name of the small merchants that were dispatched to an early grave by the likes of Wal-Mart. But the business interests who are pushing what they call the “Main Street Fairness Act,” are not exactly from Mayberry, RFD, and the competitive advantages they used to destroy Main Street merchants were certainly not a battle fought on a level playing field. At the end of March, the Arkansas General Assembly passed legislation called the “Main Street Fairness Act,” which forces online retailers to charge customers a sales tax. The Arkansas media credited the many “small business owners (who) called and wrote letters” with passage of the bill — which the governor signed a few days later. Not a word about Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, which has been a huge booster of the legislation elsewhere. Instead, the only retailer quoted in the story was the proprietor of a small bookstore in Blytheville, Arkansas, population 16,000. According to a Wall Street Journal article two weeks earlier, “Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp. and other large retailers are ratcheting up a political campaign to force Amazon.com Inc. to collect sales taxes, sensing opportunity in the budget crises gripping statehouses nationwide.” The article fingers these big-box stores as the money behind the Alliance for Main Street Fairness, which is pushing an online sales tax bill in a number of states this year. One Wal-Mart official told the Wall Street Journal , “The rules today don’t allow brick-and-mortar retailers to compete evenly with online retailers, and that needs to be addressed.” Wal-Mart crying about fair competition? Three weeks before Arkansas passed its “fairness” legislation, a similar bill was signed into law in Illinois. Wal-Mart issued a press release shortly after the law was signed which said: “Gov. [Pat] Quinn has once again demonstrated he is willing to do what is right for Illinois and its businesses. During these economic times, it is vital for the state of Illinois to collect the millions of dollars of unpaid sales tax while allowing it to level the playing field for brick and mortar businesses who support our local Illinois communities.” Wal-Mart went on to pledge that it would “continue to collect and remit all sales taxes due on all Walmart.com sales to alleviate all regulatory burdens from its customers,” and said the company was “committed to supporting the affiliate programs which help to drive Walmart.com’s online business.” The Arkansas and Illinois laws, like those in New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island, are called “affiliate nexus laws” because an online retailer’s presence in a state is measured by its affiliate network. When New York passed such a law, Amazon.com sued the state. Wal-Mart’s affiliates program “allows you to earn commissions from qualifying sales when you refer customers to Walmart.com.” Here’s how it works: If I have a website, I place a link to Wal-Mart products on my site, and when a visitor follows those links to Walmart.com, and buys something, I get commission from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart claims that it currently partners with more than 45 Illinois-based affiliates representing millions of dollars in revenue. If the Main Street Fairness Act forces Amazon.com to charge sales taxes because it has an affiliate network in Illinois, the online retailer will dump its affiliate network in that state in order to avoid having its sales taxed. Wal-Mart stands to make millions in additional online sales when Amazon.com pulls out of the Illinois market because it will pick up Amazon.com’s former affiliate network. National legislation with a similar intent has been filed in Congress since at least the summer of 2010. The national “Main Street Fairness Act” would allow states to mandate that large Internet and mail-order retailers collect state and local sales taxes. But first states would have to pass the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), which establishes certain standard benchmarks for product definitions, uniform requirements for filing sales tax returns, and a centralized registration process. 24 states have adopted SSUTA. The Main Street Fairness Act would waive these requirements for small online retailers and catalogue companies. The legislation has the backing of groups like the National Retail Federation and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts — hardly Main Street mainstays. Most of these state and national lobbying efforts are not being driven by mom and pop retailers, who are dangling on thin profit margins. Ironically, the national chain stores, which helped drive many of these small retailers to an early grave, are promoting the cause by wrapping themselves in a “Main Street” banner — even though none of them are located on Main Street — but off in some concrete bunker near the highway exit ramp. If this legislation were called the “Wal-Mart Fairness Act,” no lawmaker would touch it. Big Box stores understand the importance of proper packaging. They also have learned that retailing and politics are both about salesmanship. The Massachusetts Main Street Fairness Coalition is a perfect example of such political packaging. The coalition says, “Our local small businesses operate at a significant 6.25% price disadvantage to out-of-state, online businesses, leading to fewer sales at brick-and-mortar establishments who contribute so much to our community.” But the “local small businesses” in the Massachusetts Coalition are powerful lobbying groups like the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which is well-stocked with retail chains on its Board of Directors, including Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, BJs, The Gap, and J.C. Penney. RAM has fought sales tax hikes for years, and in 2010 spent $168,686 lobbying on Beacon Hill over issues like “unencumbered” online retailers. This week the International Council of Shopping Centers testified at a legislative hearing in Boston on behalf of the online sales tax, estimating that Massachusetts may be losing as much as $355 million in uncollected online sales taxes. Whatever you think this online sales tax debate is about — it is not about Main Street, and it is not about tax fairness. It is a clash between large real estate/national chain stores vs. large online retailers. Mom and Pop has little to do with it. If a sales tax is ever imposed on Internet sales, the financial burden will fall on low-income and middle class households — not the big corporations who are tussling over market shares. The sales tax is a very regressive, blunt instrument, and millions of online shoppers should not blame Main Street businesses if this tax ever comes to pass. You can thank companies like Wal-Mart for the extra charge on your order. Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters . He has been helping communities fight big box sprawl for 17 years.

Read the full article →

Video: Covert Says Dish Network Can Become Netflix Competitor

April 6, 2011

April 6 (Bloomberg) — Kevin Covert, founder and president of Covert & Co., talks about Dish Network Corp.’s proposed acquisition of Blockbuster Inc. Covert also discusses the Wall Street Journal’s report that Google Inc.’s YouTube may be planning to spend as much as $100 million on original content for about 20 premium channels. He speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Vicky Ward: The Whirligig of Time Fails to Bring Its Revenges

April 5, 2011

A year ago, while Washington was grandstanding about the about lazy, unethical, risky banking practices that put the entire country at risk — I published a book. It was called The Devil’s Casino: Friendship, Betrayal and the High Stakes Played Inside Lehman Brothers , and it chronicled, among other things, the lazy, unethical, risky banking practices that had put the entire country at risk in 2008. At the time, the D.C. hearings and S.E.C. investigations were underway, and Washingtonians swore that they’d clean up the mess and regulate the hell out of Wall Street — and that greed would be a thing of the past. I expressed my skepticism at the time. “The crisis will happen again,” I said. “Not tomorrow, and not in the same way — but you cannot regulate greed.” That, really, was the central theme of the book, which looked at the evolution of Wall Street through the narrow lens of Lehman Brothers, spanning fifty years. Fast forward to today, when my book comes out in paperback. Let’s take a look at the headlines: Alan Greenspan has just declared that Dodd-Frank reform legislation is a waste of time for the reasons listed above. The financial system is so ” irredeemably opaque ,” he wrote in the Financial Times , that policymakers cannot hope to sort it out. Barney Frank (D. Mass), the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee naturally disagrees. In the Financial Times , he mumbles on about the effectiveness of stress tests. But didn’t it take most U.S. banks about thirty seconds to pass those in the wake of TALF ? Mr. Greenspan has a point. But, forget opacity — let’s just look at the simple stuff. Bernie Madoff — in jail for perpetrating the biggest Ponzi scheme ever — has declared that it was no surprise that J.P. Morgan stands accused of reaping $6.4 billion in funds from the scheme. The bank denied this, but Madoff said the bank “must have known.” In other words, when given the opportunity to make money in dubious circumstances — people take the money. President Obama has ended his open war with Wall Street, making nice with the Chamber Of Commerce and promising that he will find ways to work with them, not against them. Why has he taken this unprecedented action? Could it be because he has realized that if employment does not rise and the economy is still faltering, he might not be re-elected in 2012? Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Wall Street’s favorite punching bag, Goldman Sachs, has just received a bonus of $18 million at the same time that one of his outside directors, Raj Gupta, the former CEO of McKinsey, is testifying that he gave inside information from Goldman board meetings to Raj Ratnaram , the CEO of hedge fund Galleon. And what about Warren Buffett, considered for most of his 80 years the only straightshooter in the world of finance, and a crucial player in saving the world economy (well, Goldman Sachs) in 2008? Turns out he might not be quite so straightforward. His image is tarnished amid accusations that he acquired the chemicals company Lubrizol when he knew that his second-in-command and heir-apparent, Jeffrey Sokol, since let go, had just bought $10 million shares of the firm. On Friday, Wall Street Journal readers were treated to this great headline: ” Subprime Bonds Are Back “. Whoopee! The very things that led Americans to treat their houses as ATMs are having a resurgence. And on Monday, we learned that the Fed and US Treasury are engaged in a war with the FDIC over how many companies should be branded too big to fail. The Fed and US Treasury want less than ten; the FDIC wants three to four times that number. The moral of this is: Greenspan is right. It’s all too complex for anyone to sort it out. Meanwhile has anything happened to the housing Government Sponsored Entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which blew up the weekend before Lehman did? Yes: according to a front page article in Friday’s New York Times . Although neither Fannie or Freddie has yet been reformed (that’s on next year’s agenda, apparently), their top six executives received over $35.4 million since their collapse in 2008. That’s an awful lot of money for doing-well, nothing. And all those dreadful losses reported to be happening in the hedge fund industry, swirling with rumors about insider trading after the closure of David Ganek’s Level Global and three other hedge funds in the wake of FBI raids ? Well, it turns out that hedge funds, while not outperforming the market, are still profitable — thanks to those lovely fees. Greed never dies; rules are made to be bent; the rich are indeed different from the rest of us — and Shakespeare’s fool was wrong. It would seem the whirligig of time does not, alas, bring its revenges. Vicky Ward is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and the author the New York Times Bestseller: The Devil’s Casino, Friendship, Betrayal and the High-Stakes Games Played Inside Lehman Brothers (John F. Wiley & Sons).

Read the full article →

Raymond J. Learsy: Blankfein’s Pay Doubles While Serving as Mortician to Once Great Goldman Sachs

April 3, 2011

Yesterday we learned that Goldman Sachs increased their Chairman and Chief Executive Officer’s compensation for 2010 to $19 million, almost double that of the prior year. In addition Blankfein received $27 million from investments in private equity and hedge funds managed by the firm. And yet, under Blankfein’s ministrations a once great name has been relegated to the dustbin of a different time and a different era. Quite incredibly, these past few days we were regaled with a Goldman imbroglio that would have been impossible in an earlier era. After the myriad highly questionable Goldman forays over the past few years ranging from the notorious Abacus financial instruments allegedly designed to fail , their $23 billion bonus pool at a time when millions of Americans were losing jobs and homes, their apparent preferential treatment in the sum of billions from the AIG bailout , their massive crude oil speculation, and so on (please see ” Facebook and Goldman Sachs “). Then this past week we were made aware of a new incidence of Goldman high handedness that previous Goldman leaders such as Sidney Weinberg and Gus Levy would not have countenanced even if they had been threatened with being thrown into the East River with lead soled shoes. On January 6th CNBC wrote ” Wall Street Wonders if Goldman Will Double-Cross Facebook “, wondering out loud whether Goldman’s insinuation into the Facebook financing was simply a backdoor maneuver to engineer and piggyback on a Facebook public offering. Well the issue is still in play and the outcome not yet determined. Had the same question been revised and updated last week to “Wall Street Wonders if Goldman Sachs Will Double-Cross Clearview Corp” the answer would have been a resounding yes. According to the Wall Street Journal (” Goldman Switch Irks Clearview Directors ” 03.28.11), Clearview Corp. hired Goldman last summer to advise them on Clearview’s most urgent strategic issue: how to respond to Sprint Nextel’s offer to purchase the company. That was last summer. Now we learn that in February Goldman advised Clearview they were resigning their mandate. To work for who? You guessed it. An answer that would have in all likelihood been unthinkable at another time, for another Goldman,Sachs. Yes. Blankfein’s Goldman had resigned their Clearview mandate to work for Sprint Nextel. In the rest of the business world, but sadly perhaps not on today’s Wall Street, that would be called a flagrant breach of ‘customer trust.’ And not only is it a matter moral turpitude, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, when a firm is hired “its bankers typically have access to the clients financial information and strategic plans. The fear among corporations is that information can leak on purpose or unintentionally to the other side of the negotiation.” The old Goldman Sachs was revered and respected as the toughest of competitors on an even playing field. Under the co-leadership of John L. Weinberg and John C. Whitehead the principles of conduct were succinctly set forth echoing the abiding parameters of the storied Sidney Weinberg and Gus Levy’s way of getting business done. They were clearly set forth as fourteen principles meant to serve as the firm’s bedrock signposts of doing business and relationships to the field. The first four of these were: – Our clients interests always come first – Our assets are our people, capital and reputation – Our goal is to provide superior returns to our shareholders – We take pride in the professional quality of our work Much seems to have been lost in translation in its latest incarnation whereby point 3 appears to have trumped all the others at Goldman and at so much of Wall Street. Where are the managers to set things right again and those to replace the directors who let it happen?

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The Economic Truth That Nobody Will Admit: We’re Heading Back Toward a Double-Dip

March 31, 2011

Why aren’t Americans being told the truth about the economy? We’re heading in the direction of a double dip — but you’d never know it if you listened to the upbeat messages coming out of Wall Street and Washington. Consumers are 70 percent of the American economy, and consumer confidence is plummeting. It’s weaker today on average than at the lowest point of the Great Recession. The Reuters/University of Michigan survey shows a 10 point decline in March — the tenth largest drop on record. Part of that drop is attributable to rising fuel and food prices. A separate Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence, just released, shows consumer confidence at a five-month low — and a large part is due to expectations of fewer jobs and lower wages in the months ahead. Pessimistic consumers buy less. And fewer sales spells economic trouble ahead. What about the 192,000 jobs added in February ? (We’ll know more Friday about how many jobs were added in March.) It’s peanuts compared to what’s needed. Remember, 125,000 new jobs are necessary just to keep up with a growing number of Americans eligible for employment. And the nation has lost so many jobs over the last three years that even at a rate of 200,000 a month we wouldn’t get back to 6 percent unemployment until 2016. But isn’t the economy growing again — by an estimated 2.5 to 2.9 percent this year? Yes, but that’s even less than peanuts. The deeper the economic hole, the faster the growth needed to get back on track. By this point in the so-called recovery we’d expect growth of 4 to 6 percent. Consider that back in 1934, when it was emerging from the deepest hole of the Great Depression, the economy grew 7.7 percent. The next year it grew over 8 percent. In 1936 it grew a whopping 14.1 percent. Add two other ominous signs: Real hourly wages continue to fall, and housing prices continue to drop. Hourly wages are falling because with unemployment so high, most people have no bargaining power and will take whatever they can get. Housing is dropping because of the ever-larger number of homes people have walked away from because they can’t pay their mortgages. But because homes the biggest asset most Americans own, as home prices drop most Americans feel even poorer. There’s no possibility government will make up for the coming shortfall in consumer spending. To the contrary, government is worsening the situation. State and local governments are slashing their budgets by roughly $110 billion this year. The federal stimulus is ending, and the federal government will end up cutting some $30 billion from this year’s budget. In other words: Watch out. We may avoid a double dip but the economy is slowing ominously, and the booster rockets are disappearing. So why aren’t we getting the truth about the economy? For one thing, Wall Street is buoyant — and most financial news you hear comes from the Street. Wall Street profits soared to $426.5 billion last quarter, according to the Commerce Department. (That gain more than offset a drop in the profits of non-financial domestic companies.) Anyone who believes the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill put a stop to the Street’s creativity hasn’t been watching. To the extent non-financial companies are doing well, they’re making most of their money abroad. Since 1992, for example, G.E.’s offshore profits have risen $92 billion, from $15 billion (which is one reason it pays no U.S. taxes). In fact, the only group that’s optimistic about the future are CEOs of big American companies. The Business Roundtable’s economic outlook index, which surveys 142 CEOs, is now at its highest point since it began in 2002. Washington, meanwhile, doesn’t want to sound the economic alarm. The White House and most Democrats want Americans to believe the economy is on an upswing. Republicans, for their part, worry that if they tell it like it is Americans will want government to do more rather than less. They’d rather not talk about jobs and wages, and put the focus instead on deficit reduction (or spread the lie that by reducing the deficit we’ll get more jobs and higher wages). I’m sorry to have to deliver the bad news, but it’s better you know. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Mike Lux: Wall Street Banks: Making Enemies Everywhere

March 29, 2011

In a post a few days back , I observed that the big Wall Street banks were in for a fall because they had become so arrogant in their power and wealth. One example of this is on the swipe fee issue, where their over-the-top market manipulation and hyper-aggressive political tactics are ticking off not just old progressive populists like me, but a lot of the rest of the business community. Small retailers, grocers, restaurant owners, gas station owners, and cabbies have become incensed at the way these banks and their credit card companies charge exorbitant swipe fees and will not negotiate on the matter. I have started working with retail business groups on this issue simply because I’d much rather see these Main Street business folks get more of the $48 billion going out the door in swipe fees than the big banks that control more than 80 percent of the market. This issue is likely to come up for a vote within days in the Senate, so raise some hell. Here’s a new Web ad an organization I chair, American Family Voices , just put up that does a great job of talking about this issue from the small business point of view. Check it out : Over the weekend, I wrote about an ad on the Clean Air Act that AFV had just put up. Yesterday, I wrote about the Social Security and Medicare issue . While these are very different issues in one way, they all have one thing in common: They are about attacks on the American middle class. Wealthy special interests, along with their allies in Congress and the right-wing flacks like Glenn Beck that defend them (have you seen Beck’s high-pitched whining over the last week about the outrageous idea that people might actually want to take to the streets to challenge Wall Street on foreclosures?), want the ability to run roughshod over the American middle class — even if it means poisoning your kids, telling your Grandma she’s just going to have to get by on less, or taking money out of the pockets of consumers and struggling small businesses on every credit/debit card transaction. Washington is dominated by these behemoths, so even when standing up for policies that so obviously benefit the vast majority of middle-class Americans, it is difficult to fight them. These Wall Street banks are the worst of the special interests. It is not enough to have crashed the entire world economy with their speculative bubbles and financial fraud; it is not enough that in their determination to continue to manipulate their books and inflate their assets they are foreclosing on millions of homeowners rather than writing down their mortgages; it is not enough that they fight tooth and nail against every tiny little bit of oversight that sensible folks want to place on them; it is not enough that the six biggest banks already own assets equaling 64 percent of our nation’s GDP. None of that wealth, power, and hubris is enough for them. They also want to gouge every mom-and-pop businessperson who wants to let customers pay for things with a credit or debit card. The first step in restoring the American Dream is to take these wealthy, arrogant Wall Street guys and other wealthy special interests out of the temple of our government . Mike Lux is the President of American Family Voices.

Read the full article →

Henry Blodget: That Was a Classy Thing Lloyd Blankfein Did at the Rajaratnam Trial This Week

March 25, 2011

Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein testified at the Raj Rajaratnam insider trading trial the week. From most accounts, Blankfein’s testimony was devastating to Rajaratnam. Along with just about every other piece of evidence that has been presented thus far, it suggested that Rajaratnam is guilty as charged and will soon be spending some time in a federal prison. But the more surprising thing about Blankfein’s appearance was not what he said on the stand, but what he did when he stepped down. What did he do? He walked over to the defense table and shook Raj Rajaratnam’s hand. That was a very classy thing to do, and it says a lot about Blankfein as a person. Normally on Wall Street, when someone gets in trouble, everyone else on Wall Street rushes to distance themselves, lest they be considered a sympathizer — or, worse, a co-conspirator. In private, some folks stay supportive, but they rarely show that support in public. Instead, if forced to render public judgment, most Wall Street folks will either demur or express disgust and shock at the disgraceful conduct that has been discovered within their midst. That’s the easiest and most popular response, of course. And it’s also the least-risky response, as far as PR is concerned. (You don’t win PR points defending folks that the public has concluded are scumbags. And, for a variety of reasons, the public concludes that just about every Wall Street figure who gets in trouble is a scumbag. And some of them certainly are.). In any event, Lloyd Blankfein is the sitting Chief Executive Officer of the most powerful and important Wall Street firm in the world. He’s also the CEO of a firm that has come under intense scrutiny and criticism of its own in recent years. The “safe” thing for Blankfein to have done, therefore, would have been to behave the way many neutral witnesses at trials behave, which is to pretend that the defendant isn’t even in the room. Blankfein certainly could have behaved this way. He could have come in and out of his secret side door without ever acknowledging Rajaratnam. This wouldn’t have meant he was passing public judgment on Rajaratnam, and Rajaratnam certainly would have understood this. But, instead, in view of not only the courtroom and the jury but hundreds of reporters, Blankfein walked over to the defense table and shook Rajaratnam’s hand. Cynics will say that he did this because Rajaratnam is still a billionaire and one day, after he gets out of jail, will be a Goldman client again. I wasn’t there, and I certainly can’t see inside Blankfein’s head. But I think that’s b.s. I think Blankfein shook Rajaratnam’s hand because, at a human level, he sympathizes with what Rajaratnam is going through. And, at a human level, he thought that letting Rajaratnam know that would be a stand-up thing to do. And it was. Regardless of what these two men represent — and, symbolically, they represent a lot, especially these days — they’re still two men. They’re men who work in the same industry and certainly know each other by reputation, if not personally. They’re also men who have both been through rough times of late. One of these men has come through those rough times with his job, reputation, and career intact. The other is the defendant in a criminal trial that he is almost certain to lose. And in that situation, at a human level, the gracious thing to do is exactly what Blankfein did: Walk over and shake the other man’s hand. Read more on the Raj Trial at Business Insider .

Read the full article →

Bank Dividend Increases Would Give Wall Street Chiefs Millions

March 17, 2011

The Wall Street pay practice that has been described as a way to make banks safer is now set to enrich top executives. When banks are allowed to increase shareholder dividends, the New York Times reports today , chief executives who are paid in stock will see massive rewards. The nation’s biggest banks have enjoyed a remarkable recovery, even as key elements of the broader economy, including many small banks, still falter from the downturn. When results of the most recent bank “stress tests” are released to banks Monday, the big banks will likely get high marks, which would mean they’d be allowed to pay higher dividends to shareholders. Some chief executives, who receive large portions of their compensation as company stock, would get millions of dollars’ worth of payment.JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon could eventually get nearly $6 million a year in dividends, and Capital One chief Richard Fairbank could get nearly $3 million yearly, the New York Times reports. Government officials scrutinized executive compensation in the wake of the financial crisis. Big bonuses for executives, which rewarded short-term gains and didn’t encourage chiefs to consider the long-term health of their institutions, led banks into reckless deals, experts say. To remedy this situation, lawmakers and regulators have pressured banks to pay executives in company stock. Executives would think like owners, the logic went, and they’d have a personal stake in making sure their company survived beyond the next quarter. Many institutions have re-structured executive compensation to include more stock. In some cases, executives’ base salaries increased, to offset smaller bonuses. Stock payments , moreover, haven’t actually caused banks to behave differently, concluded a report released late last year by the Council of Institutional Investors. The stock awards are so large, the report said, that executives don’t treat them with the delicacy regulators expected. Now, those amplified stock payments are expected to get even sweeter. After the financial crisis seemed to threaten the survival of Wall Street’s most profitable institutions, regulators have required banks to cut their dividend payments, to bolster their defenses against losses. But as bailout money gets repaid, and as banks post profits , the government has allowed them to increase the money they pay shareholders. The most recent “stress test,” which uses simulations to determine the financial health of the nation’s 19 largest banks, is concluding. A government seal of approval would open the door to big dividend payments. That would be a boon for shareholders, which often include investors like pension funds. It would be a larger boon for chief executives, who are often some of the biggest shareholders. Pay at Wall Street firms rose 5.7 percent to set a new record last year, the Wall Street Journal reported. Regulators haven’t finished writing rules that would govern bank executive pay . At a House hearing in September, officials from the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. declined to identify what constituted “inordinately large” pay. “It’s very nuanced,” Federal Reserve general counsel Scott Alvarez said at the time. “There is no number.”

Read the full article →

Lion Street Announces Additions to Management Team, Producer-Owner Base Expansion and New Offices

March 17, 2011

AUSTIN, TX–(Marketwire – March 17, 2011) – An elite group of life insurance producer-owners has begun to take shape as Lion Street adds subscribers and builds infrastructure. The agent-owned distribution model has been validated as 18 founding firms representing 34 producers have made the decision to become Lion Street owners.

Read the full article →

Penny Hoff: Broke Is the New Rich

March 13, 2011

This week I was the recipient of a Barn Raising, but instead of a barn it was my house and instead of a raising it was more of a razing and instead of building a place in which to put my cows, it was more along the lines of preparing the place to try and sell it to avoid The New F Word — foreclosure. Until you’ve had a chance to see friends in action the way I have this week, you cannot fully appreciate the definition of the word friendship. It is true; when crisis strikes, we find out who our true friends are. Often if a crisis is bad enough, like when there’s a terrible illness or injury or even worse, when a loved one dies, our friends want to rally around — they are wringing their hands, wanting to do something, anything. The truth is that most times, when an accident or injury or illness or death happens, there’s so little for the people who love us, to do . But in our house-crisis situation, there was not just one thing to do, but about 987 things that my friends not only could do, but they really wanted to do. They fixed those hundreds of wrong things with my house in a record breaking week of dumping, scrubbing, scraping, dumping, moving, pruning, dumping, rearranging, painting and did I mention dumping? After eight days of overtime back-breaking work, the end result was that my house was a House Makeover; so Extreme it could be a hit reality show. But not Extreme only in the result but also Extreme in that my friends, who’s health and fitness has always been my business, now were making my house their business. Author Deborah Underwood said, there are many kinds of Quiet: first awake Quiet, jelly-side down Quiet, don’t scare the baby robins Quiet, car ride at night Quiet. In that same line of thinking, there are many kinds of Broke: the I forgot my wallet and can’t stop at Starbucks Broke, the I’m in college and temporarily Broke, the Homeless Shelter Broke and now, there’s a new kind of Broke — the I thought we were rich but now there’s no job and should we send our kids to college or pay the mortgage Broke. So, it was time to sell our heart, I mean, our home, even though none of us were ready — not our 18-year-old son, who will leave our nest next September, and certainly not our 16-year-old twins who only have one year left at the high school in this school district where they’ve attended since kindergarten. And certainly not me. Beyond not wanting to clean out eighteen years of clutter and cluttered memories from the basement to the attic — an idea both overwhelming and paralyzing — I felt the heartbreak of leaving every time a neighbor walked or drove by our house. Ask anyone on my street, I am the mayor. I also used to be the Bike Whisperer, having taught every child on our avenue to ride a bike. I’m the Grand Poo-Bah of Halloween parades, the Pet Pastor of dog funerals, and the Maestro of Talent Shows. I soothe myself by reading the paper and reminding myself that this predicament is not the humiliating event that it would’ve been ten years ago. Today, we are a statistic; we are one in every six families in the country. We are no longer the upper middle class. As a matter of fact I saw a frightening chart the other day that put our family of five under the poverty line. We are poor . Shocking to me, but nothing new in 2011. But something unprecedented happened since last Wednesday. In the words of author Gene O’Kelly, not only have I let go of something precious but I’ve also gained something precious, and that is the palpable sense of being carried by my community when I couldn’t walk through this letting go process by myself. How precious the feeling of neighbors reaching out and helping in ways that used to be acceptable (when was the last time you asked your neighbor for even a cup of sugar?). This week, no one rang the doorbell. They just marched in and got down on their knees and started scrubbing. It took me a week to find out who painted the corner of the bathroom where my two teenage boys had missed the target for the past six years. It turned out to be my neighbors who went in there and anonymously redid that bathroom. They get the MVP (Most Vile Painting) award. Longtime friends built shelves, threw out my too-big-for-my-kitchen fridge and loaned me couches, a dining room set, patio furniture and plants to freshen up the place. Other neighbors arrived with lottery tickets in the hopes that I’d win and get to stay! Such an amazing gift, my friends have given me. In the weirdest way, my house is now the most livable it has ever been, only because my friends have helped me, in the most radical way, to make it the most sell-able. I normally blog about fitness and I’ve always said that fitness can be a metaphor for life and what applies to life also applies to fitness — when we least feel like walking the walk is when it most matters. And from the dirt can arise the most beautiful of flowers. This week, I have been given the gift of community and friendship that almost (almost) eclipses the loss that I will feel leaving this street and this house. I should also mention that releasing the bondage of all my “stuff’ is very similar to the experience of shedding unwanted pounds. We start to feel what it feels like to be free of unnecessary weight that we didn’t know was weighing us down until it was gone. Finally, we can breathe. So if this is the way it feels to be Broke, then I am the Richest Broke Girl in all of history. Bring it on.

Read the full article →

USA- Wall Street Closing

March 8, 2011

USA- Wall Street Closing

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: How Wisconsin Can Turn Austerity Into Prosperity: Own a Bank

March 7, 2011

Public sector man sitting in a bar: “They’re trying to take away our pensions.” Private sector man: “What’s a pension?” – Cartoon in the Houston Chronicle As states struggle to meet their budgets, public pensions are on the chopping block, but they needn’t be. States can keep their pension funds intact while leveraging them into many times their worth in loans, just as Wall Street banks do. They can do this by forming their own public banks, following the lead of North Dakota — a state that currently has a budget surplus. Public workers are not going quietly into that good night of state budgets balanced at the expense of union benefits. After three weeks of protests in Wisconsin, convictions remain strong and pressure is building. Fourteen Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers said Friday that they are not deterred by threats of possible arrest and of 1,500 layoffs if they don’t return to work. President Obama has charged Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker with attempting to bust the unions. But Walker’s defense is: “We’re broke. Like nearly every state across the country, we don’t have any more money.” Among other concessions, Governor Walker wants to require public employees to pay a portion of the cost of their own pensions. Bemoaning a budget deficit of $3.6 billion , he says the state is too broke to afford all these benefits. Broke Unless You Count the $67 Billion Pension Fund . . . That’s what he says, but according to Wisconsin’s 2010 CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report), the state has $67 billion in pension and other employee benefit trust funds, invested mainly in stocks and debt securities drawing a modest return. A recent study by the PEW Center for the States showed that Wisconsin’s pension fund is almost fully funded, meaning it can meet its commitments for years to come without drawing on outside sources. It requires a contribution of only $645 million annually to meet pension payouts. Zach Carter, writing in the Huffington Post, notes that the pension program could save another $195 million annually just by cutting out its Wall Street investment managers and managing the funds in-house. The governor is evidently eying the state’s lucrative pension fund, not because the state cannot afford the pension program, but as a source of revenue for programs that are not fully funded. This tactic, however, is not going down well with state employees. Fortunately, there is another alternative. Wisconsin could draw down the fund by the small amount needed to meet pension obligations, and put the bulk of the money to work creating jobs, helping local businesses, and increasing tax revenues for the state. It could do this by forming its own bank, following the lead of North Dakota, the only state to have its own bank — and the only state to escape the credit crisis. This could be done without spending the pension fund money or lending it. The funds would just be shifted from one form of investment to another (equity in a bank). When a bank makes a loan, neither the bank’s own capital nor its customers’ demand deposits are actually lent to borrowers. As observed on the Dallas Federal Reserve’s website , “Banks actually create money when they lend it.” They simply extend accounting-entry bank credit, which is extinguished when the loan is repaid. Creating this sort of credit-money is a privilege available only to banks, but states can tap into that privilege by owning a bank. How North Dakota Escaped the Credit Crunch Ironically, the only state to have one of these socialist-sounding credit machines is a conservative Republican state. The state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND) has allowed North Dakota to maintain its economic sovereignty, a conservative states-rights sort of ideal. The BND was established in 1919 in response to a wave of farm foreclosures at the hands of out-of-state Wall Street banks. Today the state not only has no debt, but it recently boasted its largest-ever budget surplus . The BND helps to fund not only local government but local businesses and local banks, by partnering with the banks to provide the funds to support small business lending. The BND is also a boon to the state treasury. It has a return on equity of 25-26% , and it has contributed over $300 million to the state (its only shareholder) in the past decade. This is a notable achievement for a state with a population less than one-tenth the size of Los Angeles County. In comparison, California’s public pension funds are down more than $100 billion — that’s billion with a “b” – or a third of the funds’ holdings, following the Wall Street debacle of 2008. It was, in fact, the 2008 bank collapse, not overpaid public employees, that caused the crisis that shrank state revenues and prompted the budget cuts in the first place. Seven States Are Now Considering Setting Up Public Banks Faced with federal inaction and growing local budget crises, an increasing number of states are exploring the possibility of setting up their own state-owned banks, following the North Dakota model. On January 11, 2011, a bill to establish a state-owned bank was introduced in the Oregon State legislature ; on January 13, a similar bill was introduced in Washington State ; on January 20, a bill for a state bank was filed in Massachusetts (following a 2010 bill that had lapsed); and on February 4, a bill was introduced in the Maryland legislature for a feasibility study looking into the possibilities. They join Illinois , Virginia , and Hawaii , which introduced similar bills in 2010, bringing the total number of states with such bills to seven. If Governor Walker wanted to explore this possibility for his state, he could drop in on the Center for State Innovation (CSI), which is located down the street in his capitol city of Madison, Wisconsin. The CSI has done detailed cost/benefit analyses of the Oregon and Washington state bank initiatives, which show substantial projected benefits based on the BND precedent. See reports here and here . For Washington State, with an economy not much larger than Wisconsin’s, the CSI report estimates that after an initial startup period, establishing a state-owned bank would create new or retained jobs of between 7,400 and 10,700 a year at small businesses alone, while at the same time returning a profit to the state. A Bank of Wisconsin Could Generate “Bank Credit” Many Times the Size of the Budget Deficit Economists looking at the CSI reports have called their conclusions conservative. The CSI made its projections without relying on state pension funds for bank capital, although it acknowledged that this could be a potential source of capitalization. If the Bank of Wisconsin were to use state pension funds, it could have a capitalization of more than $57 billion – nearly as large as that of Goldman Sachs . At an 8% capital requirement, $8 in capital can support $100 in loans, or a potential lending capacity of over $500 billion. The bank would need deposits to clear the checks, but the credit-generating potential could still be huge. Banks can create all the bank credit they want, limited only by (a) the availability of creditworthy borrowers, (b) the lending limits imposed by bank capital requirements, and (c) the availability of “liquidity” to clear outgoing checks. Liquidity can be acquired either from the deposits of the bank’s own customers or by borrowing from other banks or the money market. If borrowed, the cost of funds is a factor; but at today’s very low Fed funds rate of 0.2%, that cost is minimal. Again, however, only banks can tap into these very low rates. States are reduced to borrowing at about 5% — unless they own their own banks; or, better yet, unless they are banks. The BND is set up as “North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.” That means that technically, all of North Dakota’s assets are the assets of the bank. The BND also has its deposit needs covered. It has a massive, captive deposit base, since all of the state’s revenues are deposited in the bank by law. The bank also takes other deposits, but the bulk of its deposits are government funds. The BND is careful not to compete with local banks for consumer deposits, which account for less than 2% of the total. The BND reports that it has deposits of $2.7 billion and outstanding loans of $2.6 billion. With a population of 647,000, that works out to about $4,000 per capita in deposits, backing roughly the same amount in loans. Wisconsin has a population that is nine times the size of North Dakota’s. Other factors being equal, Wisconsin might be able to amass over $24 billion in deposits and generate an equivalent sum in loans – over six times the deficit complained of by the state’s governor. That lending capacity could be used for many purposes, depending on the will of the legislature and state law. Possibilities include (a) partnering with local banks, on the North Dakota model, strengthening their capital bases to allow credit to flow to small businesses and homeowners, where it is sorely needed today; (b) funding infrastructure virtually interest-free (since the state would own the bank and would get back any interest paid out); and (c) refinancing state deficits nearly interest-free. Why Give Wisconsin’s Enormous Credit-generating Power Away? The budget woes of Wisconsin and other states were caused, not by overspending on employee benefits, but by a credit crisis on Wall Street. The “cure” is to get credit flowing again in the local economy, and this can be done by using state assets to capitalize state-owned banks. Against the modest cost of establishing a publicly-owned bank, state legislators need to weigh the much greater costs of the alternatives – slashing essential public services, laying off workers, raising taxes on constituents who are already over-taxed, and selling off public assets. Given the cost of continuing business as usual, states can hardly afford not to consider the public bank option. When state and local governments invest their capital in out-of-state money center banks and deposit their revenues there, they are giving their enormous credit-generating power away to Wall Street.

Read the full article →

Hacked E-Mails Show Web’s Usefulness In Dirty-Tricks Campaigns

March 7, 2011

Although much of K Street spends its time plying the halls of Congress on behalf of well-heeled clients, there is a growing dark side to Washington’s lobbying and public-relations industry: figuring out new ways to undermine and sabotage opponents.

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: The Times’ Wishful Thinking on Shareholders and Pay

March 4, 2011

The New York Times leads off its story on the Securities and Exchange Commission proposals on Wall Street compensation with a remarkable, and telling, sentence. “Lavish Wall Street bonuses, long scorned by lawmakers, have met a new foe: the Securities and Exchange Commission.” I particularly direct your attention to the phrase, “long scorned by lawmakers and shareholders,” positioned so snugly in the middle there. For in that phrase lurks a world of revisionism and dissimulation. Start with lawmakers. It is true: Lawmakers in Washington did turn upon compensation after the meltdown and bailouts of 2008. And lawmakers, both in the White House and Congress, did adopt for a time the easy belief, long advanced by the Times itself, that one of the primary causes of this complex breakdown was excessive pay, which somehow — via a mechanism as childlike as a Tinker Toy — led Wall Street to take on too much risk and then blow themselves up. Indeed, in the full flush of the outrage over bailouts, stirred that day by the comp paid to the folks AIG hired to clean up the credit default mess, Congress rushed through some amazingly crude schemes to cap pay, only to pull them back as wiser heads prevailed. But that was two years ago. Does that qualify for “long?” The truth is that lawmakers had no problem with Wall Street pay for many years — like forever. Indeed, for many lawmakers, that pay could easily be channeled back into their campaign coffers, much as the bailout money to AIG poured right back into Goldman, Sachs & Co. And indeed, even Dodd-Frank, which did include language about cracking down on pay, dumped the actual rules on regulators, who now get to struggle to figure it out. If compensation was so central to the crisis — an argument that has lost currency over time, though there are still true believers — why wouldn’t the wise heads of Congress have tackled it head-on? They can design a tax code, but they can’t attend to the technicalities of pay and risk? (And they hand it off to regulators, who have never fully accepted the pay-equals-risk equation?) Still, lawmakers are a sort of silly sideshow in all this. The real problem with that phrase centers on the notion that shareholders have “long scorned” excessive pay. Really? I’m not aware of a single shareholder pay insurrection, short of the usual mortar rounds of questions at annual meetings, before, during or after the crisis. Yes, analysts occasionally question expense ratios — and pay is the single-biggest component of expenses. And yes, during the backlash over bailouts, the media and Wall Street’s many critics howled when Goldman doled out the loot to its employees. But shareholders? In reality, the passivity of shareholders on everything from leverage, risk and, OK, pay, was remarkable. Shareholders were drinking from Charles Prince’s punch bowl as eagerly as any trader. Their incentives were aligned like a straight edge. And it wasn’t as if shareholders, particularly sophisticated institutional investors, were not aware that Wall Street firms were built every day on the hottest of short-term money or that they made a lot of money trading. They sold their shares and exited only when the party seemed to be over. Today nothing has changed in that equation. The ultimate deconstruction of the notion of “scornful shareholders” goes to the wishful thinking the Times often indulges in that there really is a process called shareholder governance that works — or, if it doesn’t always work that well, it’s the fault of stonewalling managers and boards, not shareholders themselves. This is the argument that there’s nothing wrong with corporate governance that a little more democracy can’t fix. The mistake the Times makes, of course, is that both lawmakers and shareholders really don’t give a fig about Wall Street pay as long as they get the returns, or the contributions, they desire. Change that and you begin to change the system. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal. For more from Robert Teitelman, check out The Deal Economy.

Read the full article →

Oscar Winner Rips Wall Street During Acceptance Speech

February 28, 2011

“Inside Job” won the 2011 Academy Award for best documentary on Sunday night. The film’s director used his acceptance speech to delivery pointed criticism of Wall Street and the financial industry. The Oscar buildup featured speculation about whether Banksy, a mystery man of the street-art world, might show up for his awards entry, “Exit Through the Gift Shop.” If he was at the Oscars, he did not declare himself. But it was the topic on most people’s minds the last two years, the economy, that resonated among Oscar voters. “Inside Job” director Charles Ferguson subjected Wall Street players, economists and bureaucrats to a fierce cross-examination to depict the economic crisis as a colossal crime perpetrated on the working-class masses by a greedy few. His film examined the financial crisis of 2008. His speech lamented the lack of accountability three years later. “Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong,” Ferguson said. Ferguson blogs on The Huffington Post . WATCH A PREVIEW OF “INSIDE JOB”:

Read the full article →

William S. Lerach: Blame Wall Street, Not Hard Working Americans, for the Pension Funds Fiasco

February 26, 2011

The confrontations in Wisconsin and other states are the opening salvo of a political blame game — who is responsible for the gigantic public pension fund deficits that threaten states’ solvency and workers’ retirement savings? The conservative spin machine blames public employees, claiming their greedy unions extorted extravagant and now unaffordable benefits which justify pension cutbacks and union-busting. This is a false. The real cause of the pension fund debacle is the greed of Wall Street and its corporate allies. It’s a result of their dismantling of our nation’s regulatory safeguards and Wall Street’s capture and abuse of America’s public pension funds — charging them huge management fees, while losing trillions of dollars of pension fund assets in risky investments. Wall Street developed with no regulation. Abuses abounded. Financial markets were corrupt. Then came the 1929 Crash, a wealth destruction event that ended the dreams of an American generation. The Pecora hearings exposed self-dealing and fraud by Wall Street bankers. Wall Street faced ruin. But instead of wiping out Wall Street or nationalizing the banks, we chose to save capitalism and protect investors — by creating a new system of highly regulated financial markets. Congress created the SEC to oversee stock exchanges, require honest accounting and disclosure by corporations and broke up (and strictly controlled) the Wall Street banks. In time, this new regulatory framework created the greatest age of economic growth and prosperity in history. Despite periodic recessions and bear markets — there were no more investor wealth destruction events. As the U.S. became the world’s financial powerhouse, no one got more powerful than the Wall Street banks and their corporate allies. Then they set about undoing the very regulatory framework that had saved them. As politics came to depend on massive infusions of cash, no one provided more of it than corporations and Wall Street banks. They complained that regulation was restricting American competitiveness and economic growth — our citizenry was seduced by promises of greater growth and prosperity. Government, which had actually been the key to the solution, became portrayed as the problem. They captured Congress. And then came the regulatory teardown. Congress deregulated the S&Ls. Then it enacted severe cut backs on investor protections and curtailed their right to sue. Glass-Steagall was repealed — allowing the long forbidden financial giants — investment and commercial banks — to recombine. The Wall Street/ Corporate alliance used its power to see that regulatory agencies passed into the hands of appointees who were hostile to the regulations they were supposed to enforce. Investor protection rules were diluted. A pro-corporate Supreme Court curtailed suits against banks and corporations. The result was behemoth banks, less regulatory oversight and less accountability. So, what came from this era of de-regulation? Increased competitiveness, economic growth, wealth and prosperity? No — instead we got repeated waves of financial fraud and wealth destruction events. First came the S&L blowup of the mid-1980s. Over 3,000 S&Ls collapsed. A few years later it was the 2000-2001 dot.com/telecommunications meltdowns epitomized by WorldCom and Enron. Most recently, our major financial institutions were rocked by scandal — the worst crash since 1929. Investors lost over $20 trillion in these three massive wealth destruction events, which were the result of the teardown of the regulatory framework that had been erected over the prior 70 years to control our financial markets and protect investors. America’s public pension plans — guardians of the life savings of countless working people — were the biggest victims of these wealth destruction events. A pension system is a bet on the future — some money is set aside currently, but not enough to pay all the promised benefits. So, how pension funds are invested and safeguarded is key. Originally, many states required pension funds to invest in safe, interest-bearing bonds. But Wall Street could not make a lot of money from that, so it bank-rolled initiatives and legislation to repeal these protections and permit pension funds to be invested in the stuff they make big profits by peddling. Then Wall Street money managers captured pension funds’ investment portfolios by assuring trustees that ever-higher stock prices would pay for the retirement promises. Charging enormous fees, they made risky stock market bets, putting up to 80% of pension plan assets in the stock market. The Wall Street wisdom that ever-rising stock prices would fund pension plan promises was wrong. In fact, we have seen three major equity wealth destruction events in last 20 years. As a result, the financial situation of our public employee pension funds is precarious. These funds lost hundreds of billions in the S&L disaster and the 2001-2002 market crash. After the 2001-2002 wipeout — guided by Wall Street — fund trustees took much greater risks to try to make up for the prior losses. They poured billions into hedge funds, private equity, speculative real estate and that special Wall Street invention — collateralized debt obligations. Then, in the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the losses of public funds were stupendous. 109 state funds lost $865 billion in about one year. CalPERS lost $72 billion! Now virtually all of these funds are now grossly under-funded. New Jersey and Illinois are each over $50 billion underwater . Why are our public pension systems and plans in such precarious financial condition? Of course there are some examples of excessive pensions, of double-dipping and of “gaming” the system to “goose” the pension amount. But these are few in number. And, even in the aggregate, the financial impact of these excesses pale in comparison to the gigantic investment losses of these pension funds. So let’s place the fault where it really belongs — not with working people — but with Wall Street banks. Who made money on these risky investment gambles? Who takes pension fund trustees to play golf and on so-called “educational” junkets at lush resorts to enjoy lavish dinners? Wall Street. The inappropriate investments that caused these massive pension fund losses were not an accident. The pension fund field caught the Wall Street contagion — financial corruption. It’s called “Pay to Play.” The SEC saw it years ago but, controlled by anti-regulation political appointees, it did nothing. So a nationwide system of political contributions to elected officials who sit on fund boards and payoffs and kickbacks to politically well-connected “Placement Agents” to steer fund money to Wall Street became widespread. Not surprisingly, the investments obtained by “pay-to-play” kickbacks and contributions have generated horrific losses. An investment officer of the California Public Employee Pension Fund was forced to resign — he got an all-expense-paid trip to NYC from an investment group that got $600 million from the fund. The middle men on that deal — two former top CalPERs officials — got some $20 million to arrange this placement. Two other former CalPERS officials have been sued by the Attorney General for taking $50 million in placement fees to steer pension investments. CalPERs lost hundreds of millions on such investments. Alan Hevesi — the former head of the New York State Fund — pleaded guilty to doling out billions in that Fund’s assets to favored managers in return for benefits. The SEC has finally outlawed this system of bribes and kickbacks. But too late — the damage has already been done to the pension funds. Nationwide, public pension funds lost billions on these types of corrupt investments with Wall Street types. The horrible deficit numbers funds admit to actually hide a far more terrible reality. To determine how well a fund is “funded” it uses an assumed rate of return. It estimates how much the fund will earn on its investment portfolio in the future. For decades, public pension funds have assumed 7.5%-8%, even 9% annual growth, i.e., over 100% compounded over 10 years. Fat chance! Today, pension funds are engaged in massive deceptions to conceal the true extent of their funding deficits. They are concealing the massive black holes that haunt public budgets. These ridiculous 7.5%-9.0% assumed rates of return are not “little white lies” — they are Everest-sized whoppers. If the three big California Public Funds used a 4.5%-5% rate of return instead of the 7.5%-8% they now use, these funds would be $500 billion under-funded — 10 times the $50 billion shortfall they admit to. Since this is a nationwide deception going on in virtually all public plans, try extrapolating that out. Public employee funds are probably $3 or $4 trillion underwater. The massive shortfalls we now face exist despite prior “Bull Markets” and the current rally. And the next round of excess of a still under-regulated Wall Street will produce another wealth destruction event that will erase recent gains. This is no academic matter. The time to keep the retirement promises is now upon us. In the next several years, some 77 million U.S. baby boomers — including millions of teachers and public service workers — will enter retirement. Unfortunately, the U.S. public pension system has become a fraud-infested house of cards. Wisconsin shows us this house of cards is starting to collapse, sparking a major political battle. The conservatives will “scapegoat” public employees as a privileged — protected — class. But it was not firemen, cops, clerks, or teachers (or their unions) who lost trillions of dollars in risky investments in an under-regulated stock market over the past 20 years. The Wall Street money managers lost it in investments acquiesced in by the pension fund trustees they had wined and dined. It’s the same old story. The bankers pocket gigantic fees. The privileged few get fat. Ordinary people get run over. And now are even to be blamed — even punished — for a mess they did not create. We cannot allow these public pension plans to collapse. Nor can we break our promises to workers who relied in good faith on promised pensions. Fortunately, there is a solution that could help protect retirees and at the same time help finance our huge federal deficit — if we act fast. First — stop allowing Wall Street money managers to speculate with workers’ retirement savings in risky equities and other crazy investments. Second — create a new 7% or 8% inflation-indexed U.S. Treasury bond only for retirement funds, in staggered 10-30 year maturities. Require all pension plans to buy and hold these bonds. To allow an orderly transition — require that over the next seven years — 80%-90% of all pension plan assets must be put in these safe, high-yield bonds. These bonds will provide low-cost returns for pension funds. This will stop Wall Street’s gouging the funds with huge fees and speculating with workers’ retirement savings. This solution will also help finance our huge federal deficit. While the interest rate is high — we taxpayers are going to end up paying to solve this problem one way or the other. And, at least this way, the interest payments will go to support our fellow retired citizens — not the Chinese. It’s a simple, elegant solution — but Wall Street and the politicians they control will never permit it. William S. Lerach, is a national lecturer, writer and investor advocate. As a practicing attorney, he recovered $45 billion for investors, including $7.2 billion for the victims of the Enron fraud.

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: Greenspan’s Incompetence Badgers Wisconsin’s Workers

February 21, 2011

Alan Greenspan has been strangely missing from the fierce battle over the future of public sector unions in Wisconsin and other states. His absence is strange because he bears more responsibility for the current conflict than anyone else alive. The reason is simple. Mr. Greenspan’s incredible incompetence in allowing the $8 trillion housing bubble to grow unchecked created the fiscal crisis that is gripping Wisconsin and most other states. To be clear, states always face financial stress in economic downturns. Most states had to struggle to balance their budgets in 2001-2002 and earlier in the earlier 1990-1991 recession. During a recession tax revenues fall. Consumers buy less, which means less sales tax revenue. Workers earn less money, which means less income tax. And property values fall, leading to less property tax revenue. At the same time the need for state programs increases. Unemployed and underemployed workers are more likely to need public benefits like unemployment insurance, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other public support programs. Recessions are part of capitalism and responsible leaders prepare for cyclical downturns. However this recession is no ordinary downturn. The recession officially began in December of 2007, so it is now 37 months since the start of the downturn. At this point following the 2001 recession, the economy was down 1.5 million jobs from the pre-recession level. Thirty-seven months after the start of the 1990-1991 recession the economy had generated 1.1 million more jobs than the pre-recession level. At this point following the 1981-82 recession, the worst prior recession of the post-war period, the economy had 5.5 million more jobs than before the recession. By comparison the number of jobs now stands 7,700,000 below its pre-recession level. Furthermore, no one is projecting that this gap is about to be closed in the next several years. There should be zero doubt: this downturn is the reason that Wisconsin has a budget crisis. Perhaps Wisconsin’s leaders can be blamed for not recognizing that the economy was being managed by complete incompetents – and planning accordingly – but this is the story of the state budget crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office , the economy is operating at more than 6.4 percentage points below its potential level of output. If Wisconsin’s state economy was 6.4 percent larger, and its revenues increased accordingly, it would have more than $4 billion in additional revenue in its coffers over the next two years. This increase in revenue would easily cover the projected deficit. This is even before we add in the savings from lower payouts for unemployment insurance and other benefits that would follow from a return to normal levels of unemployment. In short, there can be little dispute that Wisconsin’s budget crisis is Alan Greenspan’s work. The allegations of the union bashers can easily be shown to be nonsense. Wisconsin’s public sector workers are paid no more than their private sector counterparts. They tend to get somewhat better pensions and health care coverage, but this is offset by lower pay for comparably skilled workers. Nor has there been an explosion of public sector employment under the period in which Democrats governed the state. The last budget prepared by former governor Jim Doyle projected 69,038 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions for the state in 2011, an increase of 1.4 percent from the 68,092 FTE number in 2003, the year when Doyle took office. It takes some very inventive arithmetic to make a 1.4 percent increase in employment over 8 years into a bloated state workforce. How does it change anything if we know that Greenspan (last seen being feted at the Brookings Institution) is the real villain in the Wisconsin budget crisis? First, it should turn the heat where it belongs: Washington. The problem of the downturn is a lack of demand. A lack of demand is solved by spending money. We have to get our elected representatives to ignore the shrill whining of the Wall Street deficit hawks. We need sufficient stimulus from the public sector to overcome the falloff of more than $1.2 trillion in spending from the private sector that resulted from the collapse of the housing bubble. If members of Congress are too intimidated to do what is needed to fix the economy, then Wisconsin’s legislators should do what common sense dictates: follow the money. Rather than taking pay and benefits from schoolteachers and firefighters, it makes sense to take money from the people who have it. This means taxing Wisconsin’s wealthy and its corporations. The tax increase only needs to be temporary; since the state budget should be fine once the economy recovers. Of course the wealthy and the corporations will claim that they will leave the state and stop hiring, but these are not people who are known for their truthfulness. They are known for their money. If these big winners in the downturn are forced to share more of their wealth until the economy recovers then maybe they will put more pressure on Congress to support the sort of stimulus needed to get the economy back on track. This would be a real win-win for just about everyone.

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Housing Could Sink Recovery, Squash Obama

February 21, 2011

Hey, it’s now common talk that we’re on a solid road to recovery. Likewise, that President Obama, now gaining in the polls, is likely to win a second term. Maybe so, but if one perceptive and skeptical economic mind knows what she’s talking about, both are about as credible as an anti-aging process that really works. The chief reason: The housing mess — a subject that has become a bore and no one really wants to hear about anymore — could short-circuit both possibilities. Here’s the story! At the turn of the year, a senior loan officer at a significant New York State bank told me its inventory of foreclosed homes had risen 28% in the past few months. I rechecked the other day and he told me the figure had now more than doubled to 61%. “I was sure the number would have declined, given an improving economy.” he says, “but I was wrong. More and more would-be home buyers seem to be afraid of losing money and are holding back on their purchases, many preferring to rent instead.” He went on to note that he hears “the same ugly story” from many peers around the country. It reminded me of a remark a number of months ago from Chicago real estate developer Robert Sheridan, who told me that anyone who buys a house these days and pays the asking price is overpaying. He was right then and a chat with economist Madeline Schnapp made me think that’s still the case. Interestingly, she reminded me that housing peaked 56 months ago, June of 2005, to be precise. Why, I wondered, should anyone give a hoot about that now? Because, she explains, housing is still stuck in quicksand, it’ll take another four to five years (2015 to 2016) to get back where it once was and that strongly suggests to her it behooves everybody to take with a grain of salt all those rosy upgraded economic forecasts we’re getting from Wall Street and the White House as a result of a peppier economy. Why question such forecasts in view of growing signs the economy is in a turnaround mode? Because, Schnapp explains, one out of every 10 jobs in this country is associated with the housing sector. And she figures this struggling industry will require numerous years and a lot of Viagra to re-establish its potency on the economic scene, given its current sad state. Between 2002 and 2007, housing accounted for 40% of job growth and represented 20% of GDP, figures that are both considerably lower at this juncture, and Schnapp thinks it will take many moons to restore such numbers. A number of real estate optimists have been insisting for well more than a year that we’re on the verge of a housing rebound and some are still saying it. Sounds hopeful, but Schnapp, the economics chief at West Coast liquidity tracker TrimTabs Research, partially owned by Goldman Sachs, warns that playing catchup anytime soon is totally unrealistic, given such significant sales-stifling housing problems as: – A bulging inventory of 5.8 million new and existing vacant homes, about two million of which is a shadow inventory (foreclosed houses owned by banks). That’s about a 15 months’ supply. – The number of houses under water (meaning the mortgages are greater than the value of the homes) continue to swell. They now stand at 14 million or 27% of the 53 million U.S. homes, up from 25% a few months ago. – Foreclosures continue at a sizzling pace — 255,000 a quarter or more than one million a year. – Mortgage delinquencies, which often herald future foreclosures, now stand at a hefty seven million — which is only million below the January 2010 peak despite all the stimulus packages. – Rising mortgage rates. In November, the 30-year mortgage rate was 4.2%. It’s now above 5%. In effect, Schnapp is telling us the housing horror show — which seems to be competing in longevity with such long-running hit Broadway plays as Cats , Phantom of the Opera and Chicago — is far from over, could well sabotage economic growth and wreak havoc on the stock market. She also expects homeowners to suffer another 10% drop in housing prices this year President Obama obviously disagrees with such a negative assessment since his budget calls for GDP growth of 4% in 2012, 4.5% in 2013 and 4.2% in 2014. “No way, that’s nuts, not the way housing is. Obama is living in fantasyland,” says Schnapp, who thinks an average growth range of 2.5% to 3% in the three-year period is far more realistic. Her rationale: Aside from a depressed housing market, she points to such economic deterrents as financially strapped state and local governments (which means job cuts or higher taxes), higher energy prices, the June ending of QE2, high unemployment, widespread consumer deleveraging and massive deficits. Meanwhile, some other observers also see serious consequences from the ongoing housing woes. One is Florida investment adviser Martin Weiss, author of a New York Times economic best seller, who referred to housing in a recent promotional commentary on a new book he’s written. In brief: “With home values still sinking, unemployment still high and states across the country announcing major cutbacks, we’re facing bubbles and busts unlike anything we’ve seen in our history.” All of this would seem to have political implications for Obama, now a tad above 50% in the polls. In 2012, the nation will expect a considerably better economy, especially on the employment and housing fronts. Schnapp’s glum housing outlook with its negative economic consequences suggests it may not happen. Since voters vote with their pocketbooks, the worsening housing mess Schnapp is talking about could just possibly derail Obama’s bid for a second term. There is an old saying from sports losers: Wait till next year! “Where housing is concerned,” quips Schnapp, “change that to wait until five years.” What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

Jane White: America’s Pension Crisis — Where’s the Rage?

February 21, 2011

We should all be inspired by the breathtaking speed that protests against repressive regimes are spreading across the Middle East. It’s amazing how the power of the Internet has enabled these heroes to galvanize the public to take their countries back from the dictators. At the same time, it saddens me that there has been no uprising in the U.S., with the exception of the phony-baloney Tea Partiers ranting about high taxes. While the American public appears to be divided over whether unions should have generous wages and pensions as they do in Wisconsin, they are remarkably complacent when it comes to their own pension poverty. While I don’t blame people for being angry about subsidizing public sector pensions that start at age 50 why don’t they mind that they will probably have to work into their 80s? Most likely because their employers aren’t required to deliver this bad news and the media hasn’t covered this fact until Saturday’s front page Wall Street Journal article . Why is nobody up in arms that the mortgage mess won’t be remedied anytime soon, thanks to lobbying by the financial dis-services industry? I’m sure that’s why Elizabeth Warren was forced to selected leaders of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who are “more friendly to the financial industry,” than to borrowers, according to the Wall Street Journal . The result: we taxpayers will continue to be on the hook for future bank bailouts. It didn’t take long for the newly-elected Tea Party members of Congress to get cozy with K Street, where many lobbyists have their offices in D.C.. As pointed out i n Business Week , according to the Sunlight Foundation, nearly one-fifth of the 87 new Republican House members held fundraisers from lobbyists — as opposed to the constituents who elected them — in early February. “A lot of members did say they were coming to Washington to change it,” Sunlight editorial director Bill Allison told Business Week . “It’s very hard to change it when you are sitting down with the kinds of lobbyists who are interested in keeping the status quo.” Cozying up with lobbyists isn’t simply an easy way to pay off your campaign bills, it ensures you a job as a lobbyist in the event that your constituents throw you and other bums out of office. As I pointed out in my book, America, Welcome to the Poorhouse , this revolving door strategy was dreamed up in 1995 by then-House Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas and conservative activist Grover Norquist, calling it the “K Street Project.” The idea: Republicans would take over the big lobbying firms as successfully as they already had taken hold of the House of Representatives. As a result, between 1998 and 2004 some 42% of former House members and 50% of former senators became registered lobbyists. For that reason, don’t be surprised that even if we’re lucky enough to see Sen. Richard Shelby and House Majority Leader John Boehner get thrown out of office they will likely end up with cushy jobs lobbying for the financial dis-services industry. That will be the payback for Shelby, who, as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee opposed credit card reform and a Bush administration proposal for mortgage reform. Bankers and real estate interests thanked him with nearly $2 million in contributions in 2007-2008, ranking him fourth in the Senate. He is also King of Earmarks, having sponsored or co-sponsored 66 earmarks totaling more than $173 million in fiscal year 2010 alone, ranking 19th. And in Boehner’s previous job as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee student loan-industry officials got him to draft legislation that would prevent borrowers from locking in a low fixed interest rate, along with making it more difficult to extend payment terms. Comedian Lewis Black famously said that the Republicans were the party of bad ideas and the Democrats of no ideas. Those of us who consider ourselves progressives need to get off our butts and take this country back.

Read the full article →