street

‘Buy Everything’ Sentiment Continues On Wall Street

February 19, 2011

Angela Moon, New York – Investors will continue to ride the speediest rally in U.S. stocks since the Great Depression despite growing concerns that the market is overbought and due for a correction. Wall Street posted its third consecutive week of gains with the S&P 500 now up 6.8 percent for the year and more than 20 percent in just six months. “I’ve never seen a market like this,” said Paul Mendelsohn, chief investment strategist at Windham Financial Services in Charlotte, Vermont, a market watcher for 35 years. “I’m showing, by every technical and quantitative standard I have, this market is at extreme levels. But no matter where we start out in the morning, buyers come in.” The trend of stocks starting off lower in the morning session but ending higher by the afternoon has been ongoing for weeks as investors view the small dips as reasons to buy. But there is a perceptible level of anxiety in the market. Trading volume has been exceptionally low recently and the CBOE Volatility Index .VIX, Wall Street’s so-called fear gauge, is up on the week despite the gains in stocks. The index is usually inversely correlated to the S&P 500, and a rise in the VIX typically means a drop in the stock market. The VIX, which ended at 16.43, up 4.7 percent on the week, is still historically low but substantially higher than in recent months. That suggests investors see more share gyrations ahead. The driving force behind the rally is the money that poured into riskier assets like stocks in the last quarter of 2010 after the U.S. Federal Reserve pledged to keep interest rates low. “With so much momentum in the market, we are likely to see some sideways consolidation next week but nothing more than that,” said Ryan Detrick, technical analyst at Schaeffer’s Investment Research in Cincinnati, Ohio. LOW VOLUME=SIGNS OF FATIGUE About 7.13 billion shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange, NYSE Amex and Nasdaq on Friday, below last year’s estimated daily average of 8.47 billion. Stocks have been struggling to match last year’s trading levels, hovering in the 7 billion range this week. On Thursday, the volume was the second-lowest of the year at 6.7 billion shares, and Monday’s session was the lowest of the year with a mere 6.6 billion shares. “This is a sign that the market is tired, and unless we see an uptick in this volume,” the level of investor anxiety will not retreat, Detrick said. U.S. markets are closed on Monday for the Presidents Day holiday. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Miles Mogulescu: Wisconsin Is Ground Zero in America’s New Uprising Against the Corporate Oligarchy

February 18, 2011

About 30 years ago, shortly after finishing college, I produced and co-directed an Academy Award-nominated documentary called Union Maids about three courageous women who helped organize labor unions in 1930′s-’40s Chicago. It showed how unions were the product of struggle, organization, mass protests, and sometimes jail and beatings. I believed then, and I still believe now, that organized labor is the middle class’s best defense against an organized corporate oligarchy that has waged a one-sided 30-year long class war against the American middle class. That’s why I’m not surprised that the first stirrings of American resistance to the corporate oligarchy since Wall Street greed and malfeasance brought the American and world economy to its knees in 2008 are coming from the organized labor, centered today in the capital of Wisconsin, a state with one of the longest progressive traditions in America. And it’s why I’m not surprised that some of the first acts of newly minted right-wing Republican Governors are to try to destroy organized labor. When foreign dictators take power some of their first actions usually include either breaking unions or turning them into puppets of the state. And unions, like Solidarity in Poland, are often the first line of resistance that help bring down dictatorships. In Egypt, it was internet-savvy young professionals who helped initiate and organize the mass street protests against the Mubarak dictatorship. But the Egyptian army finally forced Mubarak out when labor unions also began to strike — particularly unions in the Suez Canal that control access to Egypt’s most valuable asset — thus threatening the economic interests of top army officers who own key sectors of the Egyptian economy. Remember that one of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President was to break the air traffic controllers union. It was one of the first shots across the bow in a 30-year long war by America’s corporate oligarchy to transfer wealth from the working and middle classes to the rich and to deregulate the economy in order to increase the wealth and power power of the corporate and financial elite. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson point out in their brilliant and essential new book, “Winner Take All Politics” , the share of income earned by the top 1% increased from 9% to 23.5% between 1974-2007 (the last year of available data). The share of the top 0.1% (the richest one in a thousand households) who collectively rake in more than $1 trillion a year, grew from 2.7% to 12.3%, a fourfold increase. From 1979-2007, the top 1%–the richest 1 in 100 households, received 36% of gains in household income and from 2001-2006, the heart of the Bush years, it was a startling 53%. “Even more striking, the top 0.1% — one out of every thousand households — received over 20 percent of all after-tax income gains between 1979 and 2005, compared with 13.5 percent enjoyed by the bottom 60 percent of households. If the total income growth of those years were a pie, in other words, the slice enjoyed by the roughly 300,000 people in the top tenth of 1 percent would be half again as large as the slice enjoyed by the roughly 180 million in the bottom 60 percent. Little wonder that the share of Americans who see the United States as divided between the ‘haves” and the ‘have nots’ has risen sharply over the past two decades — although…the economic winners are more accurately portrayed as the ‘have it alls,’ so concentrated have the gains been at the very, very top.” Equally important, Hacker and Pierson show how this staggering growth in the income of a tiny elite accompanied by a stagnation in the income of the majority of the middle class is not the inevitable result of economic markets. It’s result of a series of political decisions by corporate funded politicians to deregulate the economy while bankrupting government through tax cuts and ever less progressive taxation. This one-sided class war by the corporate oligarchy against the middle and working class has, until now, been met by remarkably little resistance from the latter. The progressive movement, such as there is one, has been primarily directed at electing Democrats who too often disappoint it by deregulating financial markets and passing “free” trade bills that reduce American jobs (Clinton) or appointing the same Wall Street friendly economic advisors who helped create the Great Recession and cutting deals with corporate special interests to pass inadequate health care and financial reforms (Obama). There’s been little of the mass progressive movements of the past which FDR said were necessary to “make him” (and other politicians) pass reforms like those of the New Deal. But perhaps enough is finally enough. By their extremism, right-wing Republicans may have woken a sleeping giant in organized labor that is just beginning to show its power in the streets of Wisconsin. It may be the beginning of a new mass movement of the middle and working class — both unionized and non-unionized — to take power back from organized corporate oligarchs and to restore a measure of social and economic equality to the nation. Just as what started Tunisia and Egypt is now spreading to Bahrain, Yemen and Libya, what started in Wisconsin may spread to Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, California, and across the country. That’s why everyone who still believes in the American dream that your children can have a better life than you do should do everything they can to support the workers in Wisconsin. And that’s why it’s so vital that the union members in Wisconsin win their fight to keep their democratic rights to collectively bargain with their employers. Last week we were all Egyptians. This week we are all Wisconsin Badgers. On Wisconsin! On America!

Read the full article →

Video: Kwak Says Tighter Rules on Derivatives a `Tricky Issue’

February 18, 2011

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) — James Kwak, author of “13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown,” talks about the impact of tighter rules for trading derivatives on U.S. companies and financial firms. He speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: Don’t Overuse the Word "Revolution"

February 18, 2011

When was the last time you strolled into your local tavern and someone yelled, “Yo, bub, doesn’t that turmoil in the Middle East remind you of 1848?” Mostly, we recall the usual televised revolutions: the Soviet bloc, 1989 (the Wall); Tiananmen Square, 1989 (the tank); Iran, 1979 (hostages); the ’60s (hair). If you’re Glenn Beck, you’re fixated on the Russky Revolution, 1917 (George Soros as Vladimir Lenin). Then come the standbys: The American and French revolutions (wigs, Chryslers, guillotines). Textbook stuff. That about empties the revolution database. But in its day, revolutionary fever swept through Europe like a forest fire, an infection, a financial crisis, metaphors we have recently learned to toss about like beach balls. The conflagration of 1848, in retrospect, was foreshadowed by minor disturbances, pressures, forebodings; but when it came, it exploded spontaneously, like Tunisia, fed by a thousand grievances. A few nations resisted it — Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Russia (too far, too autocratic) — as it hopscotched through pre-unified Italy, from Milan to Sicily, leapt to France, where the first blood ran, then through the German states, including Prussia, then the Hapsburg Empire, then back to France, Europe’s Egypt. The middle classes and nobility poured into the streets; the poor joined in. Absolutism quaked. Protests led to riots, barricades, tossed paving stones, deaths. And then, as the calendar flipped to 1849, the reactionaries took back the streets. The revolutions “failed,” raising the technical question of whether you can have a “revolution” that fails. The Springtime of Peoples ended. The crowds often lacked leadership and pursued divergent goals. Mostly, they were just tired of the same old lantern-jawed despots in charge. Expectations had been rising. Technology was on the march, and a popular press had emerged. Globalization stirred. But there had been famine across Europe — the potato blight wasn’t just Irish — and a trade slump. New ideas percolated: socialism, nationalism, liberalism, romanticism; 1848 was a boost to Karl Marx’s career. And yet, in the longer view, 1848 proved to be a beginning, not an end. The old men in charge, the Hosni Mubaraks, were shaken. The folks in the street had both demography and age on their side. After 1848, Germany and Italy unified; liberal institutions took root and pursued reforms, and Europe mostly drifted on a tide of bourgeois prosperity until World War I blew everything up. “Revolution” may be one of the most overused words in the vocabulary of modernity. There is a torrid romance about the concept, particularly when it’s occurring in far-off lands, or a past when soldiers rode horses and wore feathers. What is it we’re seeing in Egypt and beyond? Alas, the greater the distance, the stranger the milieu, the looser grasp we have on events. Revolutionary moments worship a glowing, if hypothetical, future. But even from the inside, they are chaos. Revolutions are profoundly unpredictable, not only in their direction but in their result: democracy, autocracy, kleptocracy, theocracy. They are a moral arbitrage between means and ends. Like a bubble, it’s hard to discern a true revolution as it’s unfolding; the test comes after, usually when the revolutionaries are old men themselves. True revolutions release energy, unmoor populations. The notion that any group or individual can control these forces — Mubarak, Obama, the Saudis, Google — is farcical, despite the “success” of the Chinese in Tiananmen, the Bolshevikis in St. Petersburg. “Winning” is subjective, a dice roll, not a Beckian dream of infiltration and mind control. A coup requires a cabal and a plot; a revolution dispatches bodies into heated Brownian motion. The term “revolution,” of course, has long been absorbed into our world of hype, self-promotion and status seeking. Jefferson nudged this along when he suggested a revolution every generation or so, just to clear the sinuses. Revolution is a key element of what used to be called radical chic and it attaches itself to technology like a leech. NPR recently asked people to write in about their experiences in revolutions. This is a weird form of political tourism, like saying, “Tell us your experiences in your last nuclear attack. Was it fun? Informative? Exciting?” This inflationary tendency is well known and not worth pursuing, except to note another similarity of revolutions to the notion of financial bubbles. Bubbles represent the separation of value from price; there’s no anchor tethering the price of tulips, mortgages or stocks to earth. They are unhinged, floating freely, creatures of their own gassy momentum. When we attach the word “revolutionary” to every new development, from the Tea Party to the iPad to political victories (Reagan, Gingrich, Obama), we debase its meaning and lose any sense of its seriousness — the blood, toil, destruction. We become a little stupid, a little blind and more than a little superficial — not to say a little more prone to the true revolution we never saw coming.

Read the full article →

K Street Holding Cards On 2012 Primary

February 18, 2011

Many K Street insiders are close to several of the likely presidential contenders and are waiting to see who will officially jump into the race before showing their cards.

Read the full article →

JPMorgan CEO Gets $17 Million Pay Day

February 18, 2011

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

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: The Biggest Bubble of All Has Yet to Pop

February 18, 2011

Americans presumably realize by now that living in a bubble economy, while exhilarating as long as the champagne lasts, is not a good move. Therefore it is worth understanding why the biggest bubble of all may be yet to pop. I refer to America’s trade imbalance with the rest of the world. As I explained in a previous post , our trade deficit with the rest of the world means that we must a) borrow money and b) sell existing assets in order to cover the yawning gap between our imports and our exports. And while a rich nation can indeed borrow a huge amount of money and has a lot of assets to sell off, this doesn’t mean Santa has installed an ATM on every street corner. Which is what a lot of people seem to think. Now it used to be that American liberals were the ones traditionally accused of “money-grows-on-trees” thinking. But I’ve noticed something: when it’s convenient to them (i.e., not a matter of cutting social programs they don’t like), American conservatives are now even worse. Let’s take as a case-in-point this recent assertion by Don Boudreaux of the libertarian Cato Institute: Second and most importantly, Mr. Fletcher doesn’t understand what a trade deficit is. An increase in the U.S. trade deficit does not necessarily mean that Americans are borrowing more or are selling off assets. The volume of productive capital assets is not fixed. Foreigners who invest dollars in creating and expanding businesses in America increase America’s capital stock without either putting Americans further in debt or decreasing Americans’ ownership of assets. Given that America is the world’s leading destination for foreign direct investment, it hardly seems plausible that the U.S. trade deficit is evidence of American impoverishment or of inadequate production. Now the key phrase here is, “The volume of productive capital assets is not fixed.” The idea appears to be that because we can always make more assets, there’s nothing wrong with selling them off to foreigners. Sounds logical enough. The problem, though, is that even if you can bake more cookies, selling off the cookies you already have results in your ending up with fewer than you would otherwise have. Maybe you don’t end up with nothing, but your still have fewer cookies than if you hadn’t sold any. The meaning of this analogy is that even if America can increase its stock of capital assets over time (as we obviously can), selling off some of those assets to foreigners still means we own fewer assets. Our net worth is still lower. We are poorer, by basic accounting. We own less. Debt works the same way. Even if America’s capacity to service debt goes up over time (as it does with a growing GDP), assuming debts to foreigners still means that we owe more than we otherwise would. Again, our net worth is lower. Our debit column went up. Now let’s look at the next tenet of bubblethink expressed above, the idea that “foreigners who invest dollars in creating and expanding businesses in America increase America’s capital stock without either putting Americans further in debt or decreasing Americans’ ownership of assets.” There are two problems with this idea. First is that most foreign investment into the United States simply doesn’t fall into this category. For example, of the $260.4 billion invested in 2008, 93 percent went to buying up existing companies, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Thomas Anderson, “Foreign Direct Investment in the United States,” BEA, June 2009, p. 55.) Worse, a huge chunk of foreign investment in the U.S. just goes for Treasury securities, which get recycled, by way of deficit spending, into consumption , not even investment in existing assets. Second, it’s a baseline trick. It is indeed true that if we take our low savings rate as a given and ask whether we would be better off with foreign-financed investment or no investment at all, then foreign-financed investment is better. But our savings rate isn’t a given, it’s a choice , which means that the real choice is between foreign- and domestically-financed investment. Once one frames the problem this way, domestically-financed investment is obviously better because then Americans, rather than foreigners, will own the investments and receive the returns they generate. Developing nations face this problem all the time (and more honestly than we do right now): While it’s certainly nice to have foreigners come and invest in your country, because this creates jobs et cetera, what’s even better is if you have the capacity to invest for yourself. Being able to develop your own country with your own investments, rather than depending upon others, is part of what distinguishes the serious players from the also-rans. The last time America was importing huge amounts of capital was in the 19th century, when we were still a developing nation dependent upon European bankers to pay for building our railroads and the like; as we matured into a major industrial power in our own right, the tide reversed and we exported capital back to Europe to rebuild it, for example, after two world wars. In the 19th century, we borrowed to invest in projects that made us more productive, improved our capital stock, thus we could (and did) pay back the borrowing. Borrowing to consume is quite the opposite. Today, we are selling off our capital stock and damaging our future productivity. The free trade crowd also assumes that the economics of trade takes place in a vacuum. This is where the golden rule applies: He who has the gold makes the rules and controls the key decisions. There are important economic and political consequences. If Washington is under the influence of Wall Street and so-called “American” multinationals, what will our policies look like, what freedom of action will we have as a nation? How does one possess national security when the economic sinews thereof belong to someone else? At some point, all this will come out in the wash. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Read the full article →

Sara Ackerman: State Banks: A New, Old Idea To Increase Growth In Your Community

February 17, 2011

Every year billions of state tax dollars are taken from their respective states and deposited into the Wall Street “Too Big To Fail” banks. These same banks use municipal deposits to give loans to out-of-state big businesses, often shifting wealth from local communities; a huge loss of potential that could be better used encouraging local businesses and creating more jobs. With increased attention to where and how municipalities deposit their operating funds due in large part to the Move Your Money project, many are beginning to wonder: why can’t that money stay local? If community banks could accept public deposits, we could keep local money in the communities where it originated. Unfortunately, community banks are often unable or unwilling to accept large public deposits due to high collateral limits, making the venture unprofitable. That is where the idea of a public state bank–or partnership bank–comes into play. The movement to create a publicly owned state bank has been on the rise this year as multiple states including Washington, Hawaii, and Oregon have already introduced bills in their respective states, with more expected to follow. The idea of a state bank is not new, but rather models after the Bank of North Dakota created in 1919 which today runs at a profit and allows for the state of North Dakota to make significant investments in agriculture, economic development, and student loans- all at no cost to the state. So what has caused a resurgence of an idea nearly one hundred years old? It is in large part due to the remarkable success experienced by North Dakota as the rest of the nation suffers through the global financial crisis. After the economic downturn sent shockwaves felt throughout the world, North Dakota ran counter-cyclical, leaving many to wonder what insulated the state from all the turmoil. While most municipal governments found record deficits, North Dakota found record surpluses and while most communities grappled with high unemployment, foreclosures, and bank failures, North Dakota remarkably survived the brunt of the attack unscathed. Undoubtedly, the fact that North Dakota’s economy which is primarily based on agriculture and oil was a major contributor, but many are also pointing to North Dakota’s state-owned bank as a major impetus to their success. The Bank of North Dakota was created by a non-partisan populist movement in 1919 after farmers were fed up with out of state bankers limiting their access to credit. Farmers, whose livelihood primarily rests on factors outside of their control, revolted against their dire situation in creating the Bank of North Dakota. While the Bank of North Dakota was not an immediate success, over time the bank would serve as a tool to increase capital for local businesses and farms. A common misconception of state banks is that they compete with private banks. This however, is not the case. While the Bank of North Dakota has the legal right to accept private deposits, in practice only 1 percent of their total deposits come from individuals and businesses (many of the current proposals will potentially go one step further and outright ban the ability for state banks to accept private deposits). Rather, a public bank mainly serves as a “bankers’ bank,” allowing a small, community bank to make larger loans by sharing the risk and buying down the interest rate or buying loans from community banks which increases lending for small businesses and agriculture. Small businesses, which account for 70 percent of the nation’s workforce, have been particularly hurt by the credit crunch. In a recent survey of small business owners in Oregon, 67 percent reported problems with accessing capital to expand and 75 percent supported the creation of a state bank. Easing community banks ability to supply loans will not only increase profits for the bank but also help small businesses grow and create jobs. Additionally, a state bank could provide additional services to banks including currency exchange, check clearing, and providing liquidity. Thus, the relationship is more akin to a partnership, encouraging and strengthening community banks and allowing them to compete against the Wall Street behemoths. The benefits of state banks however, go further than just community banks. Since public banks have no shareholders to please, they have more freedom in choosing where they allocate their capital. Start-ups and small businesses that may provide long-term economic growth to a community are often passed over by Wall Street for investments that are more profitable to their immediate bottom-line. Yet a state bank would be able to leverage earned income through more lucrative activities to help subsidize economic growth in local communities. An additional plus of the state bank movement is that it could be a potential source of revenue for the state. The Bank of North Dakota was able to return over $350 million to the state’s General Fund in the last decade, which came in handy when the state faced a $40 million budget shortfall at the turn of the century. A state bank may or may not be the solution for your state, but it is an interesting experiment that some state legislators feel is worth a try. During this legislative session, it will be exciting to see which bills are successful and which fall short. Nevertheless, the creation of a state bank is a new, old idea that is worth a strong consideration.

Read the full article →

Nicholas Carroll: The Broken Covenant Between Rich and Middle Class

February 15, 2011

Henry Ford did not invent the middle class; it had been around a long time in the form of artisans and shop-keepers. Nor did Ford single-handedly drive the expansion of the American middle class; the Industrial Revolution was already doing that. What Ford did accomplish on January 5th, 1914 — when he unilaterally raised workers’ salaries from a minimum of $2.34 a day to $5 a day — was to hugely undermine the tradition of industrial worker exploitation embraced by the robber barons of the late 1800s. He had several reasons, reducing employee turnover being one of them, but the Earth-shaker was, “So they can afford to buy my cars.” Ford wanted more customers, and to get them he needed a bigger pool of Americans with discretionary income: that group called “the middle class.” To get that — in a leap of thought — he was willing to reduce worker exploitation to sell more cars. Coming from a noted union-hater, Ford’s action and reasoning crystallized a new concept in the distribution of wealth, a concept that would have lacked the same credibility coming from workers or unions. In fact it was so radical that one commentator observed even the Wobblies were momentarily stunned into silence. It wouldn’t last long. In 1929, the combination of financial fraud and folly knocked the workers back into the mud, putting a temporary end to the growth of the middle class. Whether Federal intervention or World War II (or neither) ended the Great Depression is a moot point; what WWII did do, we are assured by people who lived through it, was “pull the country together” in a way that had not been seen before or since. Out of that heady atmosphere of cooperation and technical advance came streamlined cars, air conditioning, television, a housing boom, and the GI Bill sending blue-collar workers off to college in unprecedented numbers. By the mid-1950s, Ford’s personal dream was realized, because there were a hell of a lot of Americans who could afford to buy a car. The radical idea Ford articulated had become a covenant — and there was so much new wealth that the rich hardly seemed to object that much of it was going to the growing middle class. Where the slide started is arguable. If it didn’t start with the war in Vietnam, it unquestionably did by the early 1980s, when big business received both tacit and blatant messages from Washington that they could flout Federal regulations with relative impunity. At the same time there were increases in manufacturing and wholesaling efficiency, more outsourcing of work offshore (now called “globalization”), and the probably-unexpected bonus that women entering the workforce would allow businesses to pay everyone less. The covenant was eroding, and by the mid-1980s the middle class was beginning to need two incomes per family to stay middle class. So one could point the finger at the manufacturing sector for beginning to chew away at the gains of the middle class. But it would be Big Finance that was destined to bring us to the Great Recession, leading off with the 1980s Wall Street “bonfire of the vanities,” hitting the news with the fall of Drexel Burnham , and creating the first widespread bank crisis since the Great Depression in the form of the late 1980s savings and loan crisis. With too few executives going to jail in the S&L crisis, the financial sector retained its chutzpah, and opened the road to ruin in 1999 by lobbying through the gutting of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act — a law that among other things limited the relationship between Big Finance and local banking. It is worth a brief detour here to consider the fundamental difference between producers and financial people. Producers need customers who buy goods and services. Financial people don’t, exactly; they live on taking a slice of transactions between producers and customers. One might call a mortgage a real product, but it’s not — it’s an enabler to the real transaction, the real transaction being where the producer (home builder) sells a home to the customer. Psychologically this means there is a huge gulf between producer and financier. The first produces or delivers a more-or-less real thing for real people. The latter takes a slice of the financial pie as it flies by; the psychology is all “take” and no “make.” (And local banking stands somewhere in between — not exactly producing, but providing some services of actual value such as checking accounts.) This is not to suggest that producers are without sin. A day never passes without news of tainted food, poisoned water, phony shortages, exploding cars, or carcinogenic drugs. Likewise there is no hard-and-fast line between business models. Automakers have become hugely dependent on financing. Major telephone companies and cable networks seem to focus more on selling contracts than providing service. But at the end of the day, good or bad product, sterling or shoddy service, the producer has to sell their product or service, or they go bankrupt. Further, they have a limited market to sell it to. Shoe companies with $100 sports shoes cannot sell them in the Third World; they need customers with $100 in discretionary income. Producers are also more accountable. Ford Motor Co. is by most reckoning on track towards a level of reliability that rivals Honda — but they have to sell those cars to an audience where some are old enough to remember Ford Pintos exploding into flames when rear-ended. Telcos stand tall in their arrogance towards customers, yet AT&T has become known for inferior cellular connections, and they are paying the price as customers ranging from individual consumers to Apple Computer vote with their feet. Big Finance is more fluid than producers in its “product packaging,” as Wall Street demonstrated by selling the worthless dregs of subprime mortgages (ersatz goods) not only to Deutsche Bank, but to the investment funds of small Norwegian towns. Big Finance is also more nimble. While Wall Street financiers don’t have the physical mobility of boiler-room online fraud operations, they don’t have factories tying them down either. The executive who can no longer find buyers for CDOs can freely move into selling bison ranching shares or tulip bulb futures to buyers from Kansas to Kenya. The bottom line is that by any sane person’s reckoning, the question “Who caused the Great Recession?” leads to the financial sector — and the certainty that, left to themselves, the financial sector will “do it again” — and again and again, leaving nothing of the covenant that “the rich shall allow the middle class a passably decent lifestyle.” So regardless of their individual politics, middle class Americans who want to remain middle class should make note of the fundamental difference between producers and big finance, and accept — or insist — that Big Finance once again be closely regulated at the Federal level. Because no matter how it is packaged, the combination of deregulation and lax regulation means “no rules” for Big Finance — and that doesn’t bode well for the remnants of the middle class.

Read the full article →

Naveen Jain: Manage Your Company’s Online Identity — Or The Competition Will Manage It For You

February 15, 2011

Your LinkedIn profile is diligently maintained, your blog is free of comment spam, and you tell your kids to wipe their Facebook pages clean of party photos. You work hard to maintain control of your personal online identity. But do you give the same attention to how your business is portrayed online? The online identity, or “o-dentity,” of your business can help or hinder its bottom line. Yet, too many executives fail to safeguard their company’s online reputation. If you allow disgruntled customers or bloggers with a grudge to speak out unhindered about your company, rest assured your competitors will pounce on this opportunity to spread the (negative) word. Following are the five most common mistakes top executives make regarding the management of their company’s o-dentity, and some advice on taking control to prevent a downward spiral. 1) Delegating o-dentity and holding steadfast to the “it’s not my job” attitude. Many top executives see managing the link between CEO voice and corporate brand as something their PR and marketing firms do, along with managing a blog and the company’s Twitter feed – that’s why you hired them, right? However, control of a company’s online reputation can no longer be outsourced without further thought — or worse, kicked downstairs to IT and the SEO management team. Noise from the online world is too loud, complicated, and fast-moving to delegate this task. CEOs need to proactively communicate with potential customers or investors in social media outlets such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. If you’re not making a connection between your voice and views as a CEO, and your company’s brand, you’ll become a corporate dinosaur. Think of Steve Jobs and Apple Computer, or Jeff Bezos at Amazon, execs who truly live and breathe their brands. The presence and voice of the CEO is now more important to branding than the right logo, tagline or campaign. 2) Clinging to one-way communication with customers. In the old days (that is, before 2003 or so), you talked to your customers and they didn’t talk back – or at least they didn’t talk back in a way that could result in a crisis in a matter of hours. If customers were unhappy, they called customer service, their problem was solved, and the CSR rep closed the file – end of the story. Nowadays, customer communications has morphed from a one-way street into a multi directional super highway, and CEOs who ignore this fact do so at significant peril. Top executives who are engaged with customers and online influencers on a daily basis can rectify problems before they turn into crises. To get a handle on the dialogue surrounding your company, you need to spend time reviewing the top 10 thought-leader blogs and Twitter feeds covering your industry – don’t rely on summaries from assistants or wait until they tell you about the negative buzz. You and your company should be engaged daily in two-way conversation with the top influencers in your industry, whether these are executives of other businesses or vocal customers. Granted, this won’t be an easy transition for executives who aren’t comfortable with such direct (and possibly confrontational) contact with influencers – it’s easier to deliver a speech and be done with it. Nevertheless, you need to ask questions and listen to what influencers are saying. Don’t talk “at” people — talk “with” them. 3) Underestimating the power of insights from unhappy customers. Building on the last point, not all CEOs are willing to accept the fact that today the power of one voice – that is, a customer – can provide valuable insights on products and services. Before social media changed the world, a disappointed consumer could only tell a handful of other people about their experience. Today, one viral posting about lousy service (like the infamous recording of an AOL member’s argument with a customer service rep) can result in thousands of social media posts or even stories in The New York Times or Wall Street Journal . Learn from Dell’s example of retooling customer service: After getting hammered in the blogosphere about poor response to online customer complaints, Dell created a “social media swat team” that monitored blogs for negative posts about Dell’s products. The posts are routed to this team, which can then quickly respond before the negative post gains traction. And be proactive: Don’t wait for complaints to come in through the toll-free number before you do anything about them – contact unhappy customers before they can negatively influence other customers. Airlines, often roundly criticized for poor service, are getting smarter about fast response to customer problems via Twitter and other social networks. Delta Air Lines now has a special team, @DeltaAssist , that monitors Twitter for passenger complaints. 4) Believing that customers understand the difference between The Wall Street Journal and a blogger. Executives think consumers can differentiate between a respected media outlet like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times – whose staff are governed by a code of ethics, and whose lawyers ensure reportage is fair and accurate – and a blogger with a few readers who could be backed by your competition. Today everyone with a Internet access can be a “journalist,” regardless of whether they have had training and answer to a team of editors, or simply started a blog using free software. Don’t assume consumers can discern the nuances of journalism – if your customers take bloggers or Twitter users seriously, then you should too. When Sean Parker, an entrepreneur and the first president of Facebook, was concerned at how his portrayal in the movie “The Social Network” was damaging his online reputation, he didn’t just sit still. He reached out to Henry Blodget, CEO of the online business publication Business Insider and a Huffington Post columnist, to tell his side of the story . Thanks to Blodget’s posts, as well as tweets to his 24,000+ followers, Parker was able to present an alternate picture of his life and accomplishments. 5) Sending out inconsistent messages to external and internal audiences. Do you tell customers that you pride yourself on exemplary customer service, then fail to offer them a toll-free number for questions so they can speak with a real person? Do you proclaim your company as an innovator, yet tell your employees that you’re pulling back on R&D? You need to represent the company internally in the same way you do to your customers. Two excellent examples come to mind: Nordstrom and Gilt Groupe . Nordstrom is legendary for its in-store customer service, and has successful extended this experience to the web. Likewise, Gilt Groupe, the discount designer fashion website, projects an image of exclusivity and stellar customer service. Both embrace consistent messaging. There’s no disconnect, because the image is reality. When you make a mistake — like shoe retailer Kenneth Cole did recently by tweeting, “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online,” — quickly apologize and communicate that the message is at odds with the company’s image, both inside and out. Cole tweeted : “I apologize to everyone who was offended by my insensitive tweet about the situation in Egypt. I’ve dedicated my life to raising awareness about serious social issues, and in hindsight my attempt at humor regarding a nation liberating themselves against oppression was poorly timed and absolutely inappropriate.” Avoiding the “don’ts” above can help you gain visibility into and control of the online dialogue surrounding your company. Remember, if you don’t take charge of your o-dentity, the competition will be happy to do it for you.

Read the full article →

Naveen Jain: Manage Your Company’s Online Identity — Or The Competition Will Manage It For You

February 15, 2011

Your LinkedIn profile is diligently maintained, your blog is free of comment spam, and you tell your kids to wipe their Facebook pages clean of party photos. You work hard to maintain control of your personal online identity. But do you give the same attention to how your business is portrayed online? The online identity, or “o-dentity,” of your business can help or hinder its bottom line. Yet, too many executives fail to safeguard their company’s online reputation. If you allow disgruntled customers or bloggers with a grudge to speak out unhindered about your company, rest assured your competitors will pounce on this opportunity to spread the (negative) word. Following are the five most common mistakes top executives make regarding the management of their company’s o-dentity, and some advice on taking control to prevent a downward spiral. 1) Delegating o-dentity and holding steadfast to the “it’s not my job” attitude. Many top executives see managing the link between CEO voice and corporate brand as something their PR and marketing firms do, along with managing a blog and the company’s Twitter feed – that’s why you hired them, right? However, control of a company’s online reputation can no longer be outsourced without further thought — or worse, kicked downstairs to IT and the SEO management team. Noise from the online world is too loud, complicated, and fast-moving to delegate this task. CEOs need to proactively communicate with potential customers or investors in social media outlets such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. If you’re not making a connection between your voice and views as a CEO, and your company’s brand, you’ll become a corporate dinosaur. Think of Steve Jobs and Apple Computer, or Jeff Bezos at Amazon, execs who truly live and breathe their brands. The presence and voice of the CEO is now more important to branding than the right logo, tagline or campaign. 2) Clinging to one-way communication with customers. In the old days (that is, before 2003 or so), you talked to your customers and they didn’t talk back – or at least they didn’t talk back in a way that could result in a crisis in a matter of hours. If customers were unhappy, they called customer service, their problem was solved, and the CSR rep closed the file – end of the story. Nowadays, customer communications has morphed from a one-way street into a multi directional super highway, and CEOs who ignore this fact do so at significant peril. Top executives who are engaged with customers and online influencers on a daily basis can rectify problems before they turn into crises. To get a handle on the dialogue surrounding your company, you need to spend time reviewing the top 10 thought-leader blogs and Twitter feeds covering your industry – don’t rely on summaries from assistants or wait until they tell you about the negative buzz. You and your company should be engaged daily in two-way conversation with the top influencers in your industry, whether these are executives of other businesses or vocal customers. Granted, this won’t be an easy transition for executives who aren’t comfortable with such direct (and possibly confrontational) contact with influencers – it’s easier to deliver a speech and be done with it. Nevertheless, you need to ask questions and listen to what influencers are saying. Don’t talk “at” people — talk “with” them. 3) Underestimating the power of insights from unhappy customers. Building on the last point, not all CEOs are willing to accept the fact that today the power of one voice – that is, a customer – can provide valuable insights on products and services. Before social media changed the world, a disappointed consumer could only tell a handful of other people about their experience. Today, one viral posting about lousy service (like the infamous recording of an AOL member’s argument with a customer service rep) can result in thousands of social media posts or even stories in The New York Times or Wall Street Journal . Learn from Dell’s example of retooling customer service: After getting hammered in the blogosphere about poor response to online customer complaints, Dell created a “social media swat team” that monitored blogs for negative posts about Dell’s products. The posts are routed to this team, which can then quickly respond before the negative post gains traction. And be proactive: Don’t wait for complaints to come in through the toll-free number before you do anything about them – contact unhappy customers before they can negatively influence other customers. Airlines, often roundly criticized for poor service, are getting smarter about fast response to customer problems via Twitter and other social networks. Delta Air Lines now has a special team, @DeltaAssist , that monitors Twitter for passenger complaints. 4) Believing that customers understand the difference between The Wall Street Journal and a blogger. Executives think consumers can differentiate between a respected media outlet like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times – whose staff are governed by a code of ethics, and whose lawyers ensure reportage is fair and accurate – and a blogger with a few readers who could be backed by your competition. Today everyone with a Internet access can be a “journalist,” regardless of whether they have had training and answer to a team of editors, or simply started a blog using free software. Don’t assume consumers can discern the nuances of journalism – if your customers take bloggers or Twitter users seriously, then you should too. When Sean Parker, an entrepreneur and the first president of Facebook, was concerned at how his portrayal in the movie “The Social Network” was damaging his online reputation, he didn’t just sit still. He reached out to Henry Blodget, CEO of the online business publication Business Insider and a Huffington Post columnist, to tell his side of the story . Thanks to Blodget’s posts, as well as tweets to his 24,000+ followers, Parker was able to present an alternate picture of his life and accomplishments. 5) Sending out inconsistent messages to external and internal audiences. Do you tell customers that you pride yourself on exemplary customer service, then fail to offer them a toll-free number for questions so they can speak with a real person? Do you proclaim your company as an innovator, yet tell your employees that you’re pulling back on R&D? You need to represent the company internally in the same way you do to your customers. Two excellent examples come to mind: Nordstrom and Gilt Groupe . Nordstrom is legendary for its in-store customer service, and has successful extended this experience to the web. Likewise, Gilt Groupe, the discount designer fashion website, projects an image of exclusivity and stellar customer service. Both embrace consistent messaging. There’s no disconnect, because the image is reality. When you make a mistake — like shoe retailer Kenneth Cole did recently by tweeting, “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online,” — quickly apologize and communicate that the message is at odds with the company’s image, both inside and out. Cole tweeted : “I apologize to everyone who was offended by my insensitive tweet about the situation in Egypt. I’ve dedicated my life to raising awareness about serious social issues, and in hindsight my attempt at humor regarding a nation liberating themselves against oppression was poorly timed and absolutely inappropriate.” Avoiding the “don’ts” above can help you gain visibility into and control of the online dialogue surrounding your company. Remember, if you don’t take charge of your o-dentity, the competition will be happy to do it for you.

Read the full article →

Naveen Jain: Manage Your Company’s Online Identity — Or The Competition Will Manage It For You

February 15, 2011

Your LinkedIn profile is diligently maintained, your blog is free of comment spam, and you tell your kids to wipe their Facebook pages clean of party photos. You work hard to maintain control of your personal online identity. But do you give the same attention to how your business is portrayed online? The online identity, or “o-dentity,” of your business can help or hinder its bottom line. Yet, too many executives fail to safeguard their company’s online reputation. If you allow disgruntled customers or bloggers with a grudge to speak out unhindered about your company, rest assured your competitors will pounce on this opportunity to spread the (negative) word. Following are the five most common mistakes top executives make regarding the management of their company’s o-dentity, and some advice on taking control to prevent a downward spiral. 1) Delegating o-dentity and holding steadfast to the “it’s not my job” attitude. Many top executives see managing the link between CEO voice and corporate brand as something their PR and marketing firms do, along with managing a blog and the company’s Twitter feed – that’s why you hired them, right? However, control of a company’s online reputation can no longer be outsourced without further thought — or worse, kicked downstairs to IT and the SEO management team. Noise from the online world is too loud, complicated, and fast-moving to delegate this task. CEOs need to proactively communicate with potential customers or investors in social media outlets such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. If you’re not making a connection between your voice and views as a CEO, and your company’s brand, you’ll become a corporate dinosaur. Think of Steve Jobs and Apple Computer, or Jeff Bezos at Amazon, execs who truly live and breathe their brands. The presence and voice of the CEO is now more important to branding than the right logo, tagline or campaign. 2) Clinging to one-way communication with customers. In the old days (that is, before 2003 or so), you talked to your customers and they didn’t talk back – or at least they didn’t talk back in a way that could result in a crisis in a matter of hours. If customers were unhappy, they called customer service, their problem was solved, and the CSR rep closed the file – end of the story. Nowadays, customer communications has morphed from a one-way street into a multi directional super highway, and CEOs who ignore this fact do so at significant peril. Top executives who are engaged with customers and online influencers on a daily basis can rectify problems before they turn into crises. To get a handle on the dialogue surrounding your company, you need to spend time reviewing the top 10 thought-leader blogs and Twitter feeds covering your industry – don’t rely on summaries from assistants or wait until they tell you about the negative buzz. You and your company should be engaged daily in two-way conversation with the top influencers in your industry, whether these are executives of other businesses or vocal customers. Granted, this won’t be an easy transition for executives who aren’t comfortable with such direct (and possibly confrontational) contact with influencers – it’s easier to deliver a speech and be done with it. Nevertheless, you need to ask questions and listen to what influencers are saying. Don’t talk “at” people — talk “with” them. 3) Underestimating the power of insights from unhappy customers. Building on the last point, not all CEOs are willing to accept the fact that today the power of one voice – that is, a customer – can provide valuable insights on products and services. Before social media changed the world, a disappointed consumer could only tell a handful of other people about their experience. Today, one viral posting about lousy service (like the infamous recording of an AOL member’s argument with a customer service rep) can result in thousands of social media posts or even stories in The New York Times or Wall Street Journal . Learn from Dell’s example of retooling customer service: After getting hammered in the blogosphere about poor response to online customer complaints, Dell created a “social media swat team” that monitored blogs for negative posts about Dell’s products. The posts are routed to this team, which can then quickly respond before the negative post gains traction. And be proactive: Don’t wait for complaints to come in through the toll-free number before you do anything about them – contact unhappy customers before they can negatively influence other customers. Airlines, often roundly criticized for poor service, are getting smarter about fast response to customer problems via Twitter and other social networks. Delta Air Lines now has a special team, @DeltaAssist , that monitors Twitter for passenger complaints. 4) Believing that customers understand the difference between The Wall Street Journal and a blogger. Executives think consumers can differentiate between a respected media outlet like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times – whose staff are governed by a code of ethics, and whose lawyers ensure reportage is fair and accurate – and a blogger with a few readers who could be backed by your competition. Today everyone with a Internet access can be a “journalist,” regardless of whether they have had training and answer to a team of editors, or simply started a blog using free software. Don’t assume consumers can discern the nuances of journalism – if your customers take bloggers or Twitter users seriously, then you should too. When Sean Parker, an entrepreneur and the first president of Facebook, was concerned at how his portrayal in the movie “The Social Network” was damaging his online reputation, he didn’t just sit still. He reached out to Henry Blodget, CEO of the online business publication Business Insider and a Huffington Post columnist, to tell his side of the story . Thanks to Blodget’s posts, as well as tweets to his 24,000+ followers, Parker was able to present an alternate picture of his life and accomplishments. 5) Sending out inconsistent messages to external and internal audiences. Do you tell customers that you pride yourself on exemplary customer service, then fail to offer them a toll-free number for questions so they can speak with a real person? Do you proclaim your company as an innovator, yet tell your employees that you’re pulling back on R&D? You need to represent the company internally in the same way you do to your customers. Two excellent examples come to mind: Nordstrom and Gilt Groupe . Nordstrom is legendary for its in-store customer service, and has successful extended this experience to the web. Likewise, Gilt Groupe, the discount designer fashion website, projects an image of exclusivity and stellar customer service. Both embrace consistent messaging. There’s no disconnect, because the image is reality. When you make a mistake — like shoe retailer Kenneth Cole did recently by tweeting, “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online,” — quickly apologize and communicate that the message is at odds with the company’s image, both inside and out. Cole tweeted : “I apologize to everyone who was offended by my insensitive tweet about the situation in Egypt. I’ve dedicated my life to raising awareness about serious social issues, and in hindsight my attempt at humor regarding a nation liberating themselves against oppression was poorly timed and absolutely inappropriate.” Avoiding the “don’ts” above can help you gain visibility into and control of the online dialogue surrounding your company. Remember, if you don’t take charge of your o-dentity, the competition will be happy to do it for you.

Read the full article →

Martin T. Sosnoff: Trade in Your Bonds for Equities

February 15, 2011

Every time I hire an outstanding Egyptologist to guide me through the ruins I end up canceling my trip — for good reasons. Now it’s the 81-year-old despot, still black-haired, going on 85 and how many face lifts? Last year, a group of German tourists were savaged by terrorists. Recently, a busload of foreign visitors crashed on a winding road with multiple fatalities. More and more, I sense the world is busy, maybe too busy and prone to accidents. The financial world is so interconnected that when China’s monetary authorities notch up interest rates to fight inflationary excesses our Big Board shudders. Turmoil in Egypt triggered a $6 spike in oil futures over 2 days. Talk about butterflies flapping their wings on distant continents! When markets roil in pain, missing geopolitical upsets in the Mideast, I force myself to press trading desk buttons and buy reciprocal beneficiaries. Egypt’s pain is oil’s gain. In case you missed it, both Schlumberger and Halliburton spiked 10 percent. Oil reserves outside the Mideast just turned more strategically valuable. Drilling is bound to accelerate elsewhere. I hate this daily noise level, but I’ve learned not to overreact and go on with my life, tuned into the mighty flow of Ole Man River, the long term trends lurking beneath the surface of choppy waters. Some fifty years ago, Sidney Homer, Solomon’s research partner, published his annual supply and demand for funds study that dealt with the bond market. It couldn’t encompass wars and financial panics but was a good indicator of where the bond market was headed. Later on, Henry Kaufman took on this responsibility. Traders at Solly ignored these term papers as too academic, but this document was distributed to the Street and eagerly awaited by all of us. Everyone today dissects each mumble of Federal Reserve Board members and makes decisions based on the course of the dollar, interest rates, inflation and emerging markets dynamics. I don’t see much work done on the supply and demand for funds available to our stock market. The Street tracks volatility and the correlation of specific stock market groups to broader indices like the S&P 500, but this is pure noise level stuff. Stats I look at suggest huge money streaming into equities from institutional and individual investors. Forget foreign money which is volatile and invariably comes in late, thereby accentuating bull markets but is not a significant variable. Changes in flows mount into trillions of dollars, enough to move Big Board valuations higher. Margin credit is insignificant, maybe $500 billion in a market valued near $15 trillion. This even with interest charges relatively insignificant for well heeled investors, no more than 1 percent. The quarterly net flow into financial assets during the bear market turned from a $200 billion positive to a negative number. Individuals, at least, handled themselves conservatively, raised cash, didn’t tap margin credit and plowed money into bond funds, municipals, and even paid down outstanding debt. Meanwhile, state and local debt rose inexorably this past decade as did Federal debt and Fanny and Freddy’s mortgage pools. But, the cost of debt service for the government is half what it was 10 years ago and debt service as a percentage of GDP rose only 2 percentage points to 18 percent from 16 percent. Politicians rarely dig down into such pivotal numbers. Even though real short term interest rates turned negative the past few years, individuals raised cash holdings to 40 percent of financial assets from 30 percent. Only in the mid-seventies and early 1980′s was cash as much of 60 percent of assets. Then, short term interest rates ranged as high as 15 percent under Paul Volcker’s reign as Federal Reserve Board chairman. Those days gone, but not forgotten. Currently, there’s a sea charge in asset deployment under way by individuals and institutions. Money is coming out of bond funds and municipals and flowing into equities. The only fixed income sector holding up is the junk bond category, where yields to maturity of 7 percent or better are available on single B credits. Even BB credits with yields of 5.5 percent are holding firm despite the treasury market’s decline. Unless 10-year Treasuries spike to the 4.5 percent level shortly (not my call) the high yield market could be almost as attractive a sector as it was over the past 24 months and give stock market indices a run for best asset class, again. Over the past six years, private pension funds took bond holdings up by $1 trillion, but this move is played out and capital is moving back into stocks. Equities dropped from 60 percent of assets to below 40 percent at the market bottom. Fixed income investments had risen to as high as 30 percent of assets from a normalized 20 percent. Equities at the top of the market in 2007 reached about $19 trillion and bottomed at $10 trillion. Cash for all institutional investors and individuals over the past decade rose form $5 trillion to $9 trillion, a huge amount needing reinvestment into higher yielding paper. Even the Big Board yields over 2 percent and is seeing serious payouts from tech houses like Intel and Microsoft to be followed by Cisco and perhaps even Apple, presently sitting on its $70 billion boodle. Equities, normally 70 percent of private pension fund assets, even after the monstrous market rally now stand at 60 percent of assets. Fixed income investments remain at 40 percent of assets, normally closer to 20 percent. Financial assets held by individuals have rebounded to $25 trillion from approximately $20 billion at the market’s low point. I see at least $5 trillion in pension fund and individual assets reallocating to equities over the next 24 months from cash holdings and bonds. Unless short rates rise markedly over the next 12 months, the reallocation from cash alone could reach as much as $4 trillion. Fixed income investments seem too high at $9 trillion vs. a normalized level of $5 trillion so my $5 trillion asset reallocation number could be conservative. Obviously, inertia is a powerful force and what is sensible and logical doesn’t always happen. Consumer confidence is rising so this is a plus factor, but home prices need to perk up, too. After all, half of all family wealth resides in home ownership. A weak dollar is good for the stock market up to a point, but negative for fixed income investments. The world is witnessing serious commodity inflation in oil, copper, iron ore and grains. All this could lead to tightening by central banks, worldwide. A reversal in Federal Reserve Board policy emphasis could happen sooner than the bond crowd anticipates. Nobody expects Fed Funds above 1 percent well into 2012. Money may stay in short term holdings longer than I expect. If 10-year Treasuries pierce through the 4 percent yield level it could inhibit capital flows into equities. Market pundits would take down their projection of a mid-teens price earnings ratio by a couple of notches. There could be a reverse flow out of equities into bonds, but I rate this as a low probability. Net, net of this supply and demand funds analysis for the stock market, we should see at least a couple of trillion flowing into stocks, maybe more. This sum is a big number for a market valued around $15 trillion. I wasn’t smart enough to buy gold which thrives on geopolitical unrest, but I did put new money into commodities, namely oil, and coal, copper and iron ore. If anything, growth stocks turn marginally more attractive, even richly priced properties like Amazon and Baidu whose top lines mushroom for years to come. Both Apple and Google posted way above consensus numbers. Somebody besides me must care, sooner or later. Apple now trades above its price point when the Steve Jobs bomb shell hit the tape.

Read the full article →

Phil Trupp: The Tipster Calls: Do You Take the Money and Run?

February 15, 2011

Your friend who works at ABC Company tells you that the company is about to be acquired for more than it’s worth by XYZ Company, and that the stock price of ABC is likely to double. You trust your friend’s tip because he’s an executive at ABC and he or she is doubling down on the buyout. Question: As a retail investor, what would you do based on your friend’s tip? Do you call your broker and buy up as much ABC as you can afford? Or do you betray your friend, contact the Securities and Exchange Commission and volunteer to be a wire-wearing whistle blower hoping to bag a big, fat reward? Like many Wall Street operators — especially if you’re a hedge fund manager — you have been given inside information, which translates into money and power. But now you’re faced with an ethical dilemma. You read the newspapers and financial blogs and you are well aware of two things: insider trading is illegal, and yet it is an often-used business model with a long and inglorious history. What exactly is insider trading? Basically, it is the practice of buying or selling stock or other assets by corporate officers, other insiders or ordinary investors on the basis of information that is not public and is supposed to remain confidential. Insiders can buy or sell stock based on information they report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, thus making the public aware of the good, bad or perhaps the ugly data on a company’s balance sheet. Reporting this information to the SEC presumably gives the average investor a break, a level playing field upon which to make informed decisions. Fair enough. But if you are a major player or a hedge fund magnet, giving ordinary investors a break isn’t your concern. To pull down those hefty hedge fund fees you need to offer an edge, and that edge often amounts to inside knowledge played close to the chest and out of public view. So if the “whales” of Wall Street constantly are in search of inside tips, despite the legal and ethical pitfalls, why shouldn’t you cash in on your friend’s possibly profitable tip? The February 13 edition of the Washington Post business section features a story by David S. Hilzenrath and Jea Lynn Yang headlined “The federal dragnet on Wall Street’s inside game” which explores the insider trading business model and the government’s all-out push to put a stop to it. Insider trading has grown in recent years, the reporters conclude. But is this a growing epidemic enhanced by digital technology and unique ways of tracing cons? Or has technology merely exposed a practice that has been at work for generations? My experience brings me down on the side of the latter. Wall Street is not the Land of the Fair Deal. Indeed, insider trading is a means of taking advantage of ordinary investors and making a killing in the dark. For example, those insiders privy to special, non-public knowledge can — and often do — sell investors stock that is teetering on the edge of the cliff. The insiders sell you on the upside while betting the farm on the inevitable collapse. For example, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson recently worked with Goldman Sachs to produce a derivative made up of bad mortgage loans. Paulson bet against this so-called Abacus package, knowing in advance that it was built to crash, while Goldman sold it to clients as a bullish move. Paulson made out big-time, as did Goldman, while unsuspecting investors took the fall. The Abacus scam made headlines in the wake of populist outrage directed at the 2008 market meltdown. It was a sexy example of greed and insiders feeding at the public trough. The Street shrugged it off. It was by all accounts business as usual. It now appears that the Obama Administration is determined to crack down on such insider deals. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is focusing on a wide circle of expert network firms which feed inside information to financial management companies, matching various company insiders to stock traders. Wall Street argues there’s nothing wrong with this practice, that it is part of due diligence. The trouble with this argument is that the public isn’t connected to the process and is often enough victimized by it. DOJ is now trolling for insiders willing to wear wires to help build cases against billionaire hedge funds and those who feed them insider information. If there is honor among thieves, DOJ is proving the opposite is true. If stock and bond traders can’t cash in using legal practices, they can always snitch and pick up whistle blower awards granted by regulators that are often equal to, and at times exceed, the bonuses given to top financial executives. So where do you come down on my initial question? Do you call DOJ or do you take your insider tip and run straight to your broker? Critics of insider trading say the “integrity” of the market depends on your answer. Yet these same critics are challenged to find — let alone protect — the integrity they are so eager to preserve.

Read the full article →

Wall Street managed to close on Red…

February 15, 2011

Wall Street managed to close on Red…

Read the full article →

Obama Budget Proposal

February 14, 2011

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, is poised to propose a budget to congress that attacks programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, expand access to graduate-level education and undermine that type of community-based organizations that gave the president his start in Chicago. Obama is expected to propose cutting deficits by roughly a trillion dollars over the next decade — or roughly $100 billion each year — by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits. The president’s budget is expected to mostly target “non-defense discretionary spending,” which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible. Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama’s budget will reach a record level of $1.6 trillion this year, though even that number, relative to GDP, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the figure is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. “President Barack Obama’s 2012 budget proposal projects this year’s deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December’s tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday,” the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.) A closer look at surveys suggests that when people say they are concerned about the deficit, they are actually worried about the economy. The president’s official budget proposal will be released Monday morning and we’ll update with breaking news and reactions throughout the day.

Read the full article →

Wall Street fluctuate by closing

February 14, 2011

Wall Street fluctuate by closing

Read the full article →

Wall Street fluctuate by closing

February 14, 2011

Wall Street fluctuate by closing

Read the full article →

Kathleen E. Christensen: The False Choice: A Flexible Job or a Good Job?

February 13, 2011

Workplace flexibility: eighty percent of American employees say they want it, nearly half of job seekers rate it as a higher priority than salary, and thousands of companies have embraced it as an efficient way to keep employees happy and boost business productivity. But despite all this, there is still a widespread misconception that workplace flexibility is only appropriate to a certain type of job. A simple job, the thinking goes, can be accomplished by someone working off-site, or working non-traditional hours, or sharing a job with another part-time employee; but “serious jobs” still require rigid, traditional work schedules and set-ups. This line of thinking is epitomized by the dilemma facing a worker who wrote into The Wall Street Journal ‘s Ask The Juggle this week: The reader, a working mother, has an opportunity to step into a new job with her current employer that would allow her to work from home one or two days a week. The new job would give her flexibility to spend more time with her two young children….The problem is, the job isn’t that exciting, and she is overqualified for it. Taking it also wouldn’t help her resume much in any future job search… It’s not just working moms, but employees of all stripes who face this quandary: to take the flexible job or the good job? But it raises a more important question: why is this employee–clearly talented enough to hold a challenging position–only offered flexibility if she takes a worse job? Instead, why can’t she and her employer work together to find a way to make the job she has more flexible? The answer, of course, is that making a challenging job flexible is, well…challenging. But it’s not impossible. The pioneering employers who have won Alfred P. Sloan Awards for Business Excellence in Workplace Flexibility have shown that there are many different routes to workplace flexibility . Innovation in other countries has shown that even doctors, lawyers and business leaders stand to benefit from increased flexibility . As Sue Shellenbarger said in her thoughtful response to this reader, “most jobs require some sacrifices. Trade-offs like this are what make the juggle such a nonstop challenge. The right answer is different for everyone.” Perhaps working form home twice a week isn’t possible with this woman’s job. But maybe it is possible to shift when the work is done so that a spouse or other family member can be home when this mother is at work. Maybe it’s possible to let her share the job with another talented employee. Or maybe this mother and her employee need to come up with a completely new way to match this job with her life. The point is that every job, no matter how demanding or challenging, can be tweaked to make it more flexible. And, a wide array of research has shown that workers across the spectrum are more efficient when they have flexibility over how, when and where their work gets done. Perhaps the biggest misconception about workplace flexibility is that it means working less. It doesn’t. I have seen many examples of employees who get more work done when given flexibility in when, where and how they do their work. This isn’t about decreasing the number of hours someone works or giving them fewer responsibilities. It’s about customizing a job so that it fits with a life. Oftentimes this even means the employee works more. Almost always it means that they work better, are more engaged with their job, and less likely to leave the company. We need to move past this outdated image of a good worker as someone who has no life or family issues distracting them from work. A good worker is someone who figures out how to fit their job with their life and family responsibilities so that they are not distracted from either. Because of the many benefits it offers to both employees and employers, workplace flexibility is now included in the Department of Labor’s definition of a “good job.” Every business should make it possible for each employee to sit down with their manager and figure out how to make their job fit with their life. If they take the time to do this, they’ll end up with more productive employees and more efficient businesses. No talented employee should have to answer the question, “do I want a good job or do I want a flexible job?” Instead, each of us should be asking, “how do I make my good job a flexible job?”

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Worrisome Words From Jordan

February 12, 2011

As an independent trader of stocks, bonds and commodities who tells me he was up more than 100% last year and is humming again in 2011, Caise Hassan’s thoughts on the financial markets would seem to be worth a lot more than his views on the Mideast turmoil. Maybe not. Chicago-born Hassan, the 38-year-old son of Palestinian-born parents, makes a point of keeping close tabs on what’s happening throughout the Persian Gulf. And he doesn’t have to travel too far to do it since he and his family live in Amman, Jordan. The ouster of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak may be good news for the country’s 80-million populace, but is it good news for the U.S. stock market? Or bad news? And what about the Mideast, in general? While there are some worriers, it all seems to be an irrelevant issue for now as far as most of Wall Street goes. Except for a one-day drop of 166 points on January 28 in response to the Egyptian riots, the market has pretty much been on an upswing throughout the revolution. In other words, the Egyptian uprising was a ho-hum and most Wall Streeters seem to think it will likely to remain that way despite the unknowns of what’s ahead. In particular, no one knows what the country’s new leadership will look like, whether it may be infiltrated by Islamic radicals and the Israeli-hating Muslim Brotherhood and if Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel will remain intact. Hassan thinks it would be foolhardy for Wall Street to assume that all is now okay in Egypt since he believes it will likely take a year to form a stabilized government. Like many Mideast watchers, he sees aftershocks and a good deal more turmoil ahead in the region, given the economic plight of many of its residents. One down, more to come! That’s basically his view of the change in Egypt’s leadership. His outlook calls for more Mideast strife from uprisings in a number of other countries, notably Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Algeria. He believes this cleansing process — as some call it — of the region’s dictators could seriously impact the U.S. market on a number of counts. In particular, Hassan points to possible interruptions in the steady flow of oil from the Mideast and the ability of the U.S. to sell its products, such as military hardware and consulting services, to Gulf countries whose monarchs may be overthrown and provide us with about 18% of our oil. For starters, he sees the prospects that Jordan — beset by poverty, lack of jobs and a vicious secret police — is highly vulnerable to deep social unrest, and, in fact, thinks we could see the same kind of riots that plagued Egypt in a matter of months. In this case, he believes, they would be bloodier since there are a lot of unhappy armed groups there. “Moderate” Jordan, observes Hassan, is receiving more than $400 million in aid that ostensibly is going toward the development and democratization of a country that is, more realistically, he contends, is being used to tame its people and shield from accountability a heinous monarch (King Abdullah, the 11) whose most notable achievements are blowing tens of millions in Vegas casinos and adding luxury cars to the billion-dollar collection begun by his equally reckless father. He also notes that if the popular forces in Egypt (unions. professional associations and the Muslim Brotherhood) form a government, it is unlikely the new regime will keep buying $2 billion in military goods and services from the U.S. and that could cause a tinge on arms contractors’ balance sheets. An even greater profit danger, he points out, looms if revolutions spread. That is, if governments from Morocco to the Gulf stop buying planes and bullets, the tech sector will be reeling. What about the assorted financial markets? Hassan thinks the U.S. stock market has more to go, especially with Bernanke hinting he will print more money. The commodity markets, he believes, are nowhere near oversold in the long term, and that certain commodities, like gold and silver, have a lot of room to run over the next few years no matter what happens. He notes that if governments in the Middle East get overthrown, oil will go up. And if they don’t, the Chinese will buy it at $80 a barrel. So what’s the bottom line on the Mideast. Maybe Samuel Morse of Morse code fame sums it up best with his observation “What hath God wrought?” What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

Nokia Has More To Worry About Than Apple And Google

February 11, 2011

Nokia’s cell phone software has been compared to a turkey , a rotting corpse, and, by the company’s own chief executive, a ” burning platform ” about to be consumed by the “blazing fire” set by its competitors. These are hardly the analogies one would expect for a company that has been the largest mobile-phone maker in the world for over a decade. Nokia sold nearly 10 times as many phones last year as Apple, that darling of Main Street, Wall Street and Silicon Valley — 453 million units to the Cupertino company’s 47.5 million. But Nokia’s dwindling market share, which dropped 10 percent in a year to 28.9 percent, tells a different story: that of an established company hemorrhaging customers to innovative, nimble rivals who are upending the balance of power more quickly than ever before. According to the research firm Canalys , 2010 saw Google’s Android operating system surpass Symbian, Nokia’s mobile platform, to become the top smartphone software in the world. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Early Friday, Nokia announced a deal with Microsoft to abandon its own cellphone software in favor of Microsoft’s Windows Phone operating system. The alliance, amicable but not exclusive, marks a strategic effort by both companies to reverse their sagging fortunes in the mobile marketplace. Yet analysts suggest Nokia still has more to worry about than either Google or Apple. By allowing Symbian to die off, the Finnish company effectively intends to kill one arm of its business in order to focus almost exclusively on hardware. Turning its back on its software ventures has two major consequences: first, it means Nokia will be forced to rely on third-party companies to supply the brains to its smartphone bodies. Second, it forces Nokia to compete directly with companies like Samsung and HTC that have years of experience focusing solely on developing competitive hardware for choosy consumers who expect ever-sleeker, smarter, faster devices. “Nokia no longer defines its own destiny and that’s a loss,” said Sascha Segan, a lead analyst for PCMag Mobile. “Nokia put its destiny in hock to Microsoft. For first time, Nokia’s success is very dependent on how often someone else puts out their software platform.” While the move away from software is likely to shrink the company and significantly alter the makeup of its business, experts say such a shift was crucial to Nokia’s survival. “It’s probably the best choice among bad choices,” Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg said. “But again, when you’re standing on a burning platform, your options are limited. You have to get off and get off quickly.” Though teaming up with Microsoft was a drastic measure for Nokia, analysts say Apple and Google will barely blink. Neither Redmond nor Espoo has unveiled a secret weapon: Nokia and Microsoft’s Windows Phone are both known quantities, neither of which have thus far stood in the way of Android or the iPhone. And while Nokia and Microsoft are powerful brands with distinguished legacies and still-robust market share, they lack momentum in the marketplace. Windows Phone 7, Microsoft’s bold attempt to reinvent its mobile offering, was a critical success that wowed reviewers but has failed to spur an influx of consumers. It’s an iPhone rival, not an iPhone killer. “My guess is that it’s business as usual in Cupertino,” Gartenberg said of Apple’s reaction to the Nokia and Microsoft announcement. “Apple tends to say, ‘here’s our strategy, we’re going to execute against it.’” That Nokia picked Windows Phone over Android is a loss for Google — Google executive Vic Gundotra griped about the “two turkeys” in a tweet — though not a crippling one. And after all, there is still a chance Nokia may turn to Google to power a future line of phones. “This will not cause either [Apple or Google] to worry more than they were already. These companies are on their toes,” Segan said. “You could even say this is better for Google and Apple because there is no disruptive surprise to deal with. For a while now, Symbian has been a rotting corpse Google and Apple are taking bites out of.” Ultimately, the products of the new partnership are what will determine whether “Nokiasoft” will be able to upset the balance of power in the ever-more-important smartphone market. “They have to ship something that is interesting, compelling and that captures the hearts and minds of consumers,” Gartenberg said. “Nothing more, nothing less.”

Read the full article →

Freddie Mac Loses COO

February 11, 2011

Bruce Witherell has left as coo of Freddie Mac according to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission reports The Wall Street Journal

Read the full article →

Trade Gap Widens In Dec, Swells 33 Pct In 2010

February 11, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. trade deficit widened in December to its highest level in four months, the U.S. government said on Friday in a report that also showed the annual trade gap expanded nearly 33 percent in 2010 as imports from China hit record levels. The December trade deficit grew nearly 6 percent to $40.6 billion, just slightly higher than a consensus estimate of Wall Street analysts as the average price for imported oil leapt to its highest level since October 2008. Overall imports of goods and services were also their highest since October 2008, in a sign that consumers and businesses are spending more as the U.S. economy picks up steam. Exports of goods and services were the highest since July 2008, the month that they hit their peak before beginning a precipitous drop caused by the global financial crisis. U.S. goods exports to China grew to a record $10.1 billion in December and also were a record $91.9 billion for the year. But that strong finish was swamped by record U.S. imports from China of $364.9 billion for the entire year, which pushed the closely watched trade gap with that country to a record $273.1 billion. Rising oil prices also helped widen the U.S. trade deficit in 2010. The average price for imported oil jumped to $74.66 per barrel, from $56.93 in 2009. Imports of consumer goods and foods, feeds and beverages also set records in 2010. Overall, U.S. imports of goods and services grew 19.7 percent in 2010 to $2.33 trillion dollars. U.S. exports grew 16.6 percent to $1.83 trillion, a pace that if maintained would allow the United States to reach President Barack Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2013. U.S. exports of services, industrial supplies, consumer goods and petroleum all set records. The strong services performance pushed the U.S. trade surplus for services to a record $148.7 billion in 2010. (Reporting by Doug Palmer, Editing by Andrea Ricci) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Why the Republican Attack on "Job-Killing Regulations" Is Dumb

February 10, 2011

Republicans aim to end all “job-killing regulations” — especially those that, according to House Speaker John Boehner, are “strangling” business with detailed requirements over health, safety, the environment, corporate governance and finance. Here’s another instance of where the White House’s attempt to preempt Republican rhetoric (the president said last week his administration would root out all nonsensical and inefficient regulation) ends up legitimizing it — and re-framing the public debate around an issue that’s hardly central to what ails America. The reason we have continued sky-high unemployment has nothing to do with excessive regulation. There was no sudden outpouring of federal regulation in 2007 before the economy tanked and millions lost their jobs. If anything, the economy unraveled because of too little regulation. Wall Street went on a binge, remember? The Street could get almost free money from the Fed (which had reduced interest rates to near zero) and do just about whatever it wanted with it. Thirty years of deregulation, culminating with the dismantling of Glass-Steagall and the abject failure of regulators at the Fed and the SEC to use the authority they still had, enabled the Street to make bundles of money and expose the rest of the economy to unprecedented levels of risk. The Fed had slashed interest rates in the early 2000s, by the way, because the corporate looting scandals at Enron, Worldcom, Sunbeam, and other major corporations had sapped investor confidence. Those scandals themselves wouldn’t have happened had securities regulations been stronger and better enforced. No one wants unnecessary regulation. And rules ought to be clear and simple. But let’s be real. Most of the complexity and verbiage that finds its way into the Code of Federal Regulations is the result of industry lawyers and lobbyists who exploit every potential ambiguity to avoid doing what lawmakers intend — thereby necessitating ever-more detailed and picayune rules to close the loopholes. It’s an endless cat-and-mouse game that runs from regulatory agencies through the courts and then back again. And it’s occurring right now, as regulations are being drawn up to put the health care and financial laws into effect. There’s no necessary trade-off between regulations and jobs. Regulations that are designed well — that tell industry what to achieve by a certain date but don’t dictate exactly how (such as fuel economy standards) — can generate innovation as companies compete to find the most efficient solutions. And innovations can lead to more jobs as they spawn new products and industries. Even where there is a trade-off — where regulations are costly and those costs result in fewer jobs — it still makes sense to opt for regulation when the public benefits exceed the costs to industry. We could have millions more jobs tomorrow if we eviscerated all health and safety regulations and allowed our air to turn yellow and our rivers and lakes to become fetid stinkholes. But that would be dumb. “Job-killing regulations” is a silly phrase that substitutes for real thought. And it’s a distraction from the hard work of creating more jobs in America. 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 →

10 States Running Out Of Smart People

February 9, 2011

By 24/7 Wall St : There are several states in the U.S. that are losing the education race to most of the others. In the past decade, these states have declining math and reading scores, lower numbers of people with bachelor’s degrees, and comparatively fewer residents who hold white collar jobs. Colorado, Michigan, and eight others are losing this competition to states who have residents that are better educated and who have done a better job obtaining higher quality jobs. These failing states have lost ground compared to the national average. The recent State of the Union address, and almost any sweeping political speech or document that writes or speaks about unemployment and future competition for jobs, impresses the point that a well educated workforce-a smart workforce-has comparative advantages. Regions with better-educated people tend to find it easier to draw and retain businesses. These regions are also likely to be more competitive in contrast to nations around the world like China, which has posted sharp increases in the level of educational attainment among its citizens. Well-educated people find it easier to obtain and keep jobs. American unemployment figures consistently show that the part of the population with high levels of eduction have lower unemployment. This makes sense: skill equals aptitude in most cases. An employer who has to pick between two potential employees is likely to choose the one who reads best, writes best, and has the highest level of educational attainment. There are exceptions to this when jobs require very specific backgrounds, but across the American workforce, which has tens of millions of workers, any employer would want to have an employee who can show his educational background is stronger than that of fellow applicants. An educated employee will not just have an advantage now, but may have more of one in the future. This is one of the reasons 24/7 Wall St. looked at trends over an entire decade. Funds of educational facilities and educators have already been eroded in many states and municipalities by budget cuts. The slow economic recovery and the move toward austerity in Washington is likely to make this trend more alarming. The portion of people who are adults with good educations may actually drop as the capital necessary to maintain a strong educational “infrastructure” is depleted. The portion of the population which is well-educated now may have reached a high-water market, at least for the foreseeable future. The problem that America has begun to lose its education edge is not national, it is local. Americans are not educated nationally. They are educated locally. The problems of a well-educated workforce end up being fought at the state and municipal level, as the 24/7 Wall St. data shows. Just as the problem with education is local, the solutions have to be. The states on the 24/7 Wall St. States Running Out Of Smart People report will almost certainly need resources that are greater than, or at least as great as, states which have better statistics. These are the resources that will allow them to be competitive nationally and internationally. 24/7 Wall St. looked at National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for math and reading in 2003 and 2009. We also looked at the percentage of people in each state with bachelor’s degrees, and their increases compared to the increases in the total populations in their states. We analyzed the Bureau of Labor Statistics data on the portion of each state’s population which has white collar jobs. To supplement the figures which we used in the final analysis, 24/7 also reviewed numbers for high school and graduate school education. This is the 24/7 Wall Street review of the ten states with the lowest education achievement and job levels compared to the other forty-The States Running Out Of Smart People. Which ones are the most surprising to you?

Read the full article →

Rakim Brooks: Obama and the King Who Knelt in the Snow

February 9, 2011

On Monday, President Obama spoke to the Chamber of Commerce, the leading business-interest lobby in the United States. The occasion marked the President’s newest attempt to rally business to solve America’s short and long-term economic problems. Unfortunately, it also served to remind the American people that corporate business, not the American people, control the country’s destiny. Mr. Obama’s presentation was civil, even buoyant, but that did nothing to hide the tension between him and the Chamber. Mr. Obama stood in front of men and women who had fought health care reform viciously, spent millions successfully advertising against Democratic incumbents in the 2010 elections, opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, and who now were refusing to spend billions of dollars being held in reserve. He was well aware that many in the room wanted, to quote Rush Limbaugh his Presidency to fail. Yet, rather than “take on the special interests” as he had promised to do so many times in his 2008 campaign and presidency, he played the political version of Mr. Rogers. “I’m here in the interest of being more neighborly,” Mr. Obama told the Chamber. “Maybe if we would have brought over a fruit cake when I first moved in, we would have gotten off on a better foot. But I’m going to make it up.” His speech underscored his enduring desire to work with US businesses to get America back on the right track: “If there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines — to hire and invest — I want to know about it. I want to fix it.” The President stressed that private business would lead America out of the recession and back to global prominence. And in all of this the U.S. government and the Obama Administration would act as a sidekick. It was disturbing to watch Mr. Obama strain to buddy-up with his political enemies, not because it is likely to prove ineffective, but because it made the leader of the free world seem servile and insignificant. With each half-hearted punch line, Mr. Obama became more and more like the king who knelt in the snow. The scene was Europe at the turn of the first century. Pope Gregory VII had attempted to strip Emperor Henry IV of his sovereign right to appoint the clergymen that served the Holy Roman Empire. When the Emperor resisted and, in a show of ultimate defiance, challenged Gregory’s legitimacy as Holy Pontiff, the Pope excommunicated the Emperor, thus severing him from the Holy Church and all of Christendom. The events that followed were pure political spectacle. After a series of diplomatic scuffles, the Emperor chose to apologize to the Pope. And in the most dramatic display of servility, he marched to meet the Pope in Italy. But when he arrived, the Pope refused to grant him entry. The Emperor, determined to regain favor, then stood in the snow, barefoot, praying for forgiveness. For three days, the Emperor was given no quarter or sustenance. Still, he continued to pray without knowing whether his prayers would be heard; the Pope had previously declared the excommunication irrevocable. On the third day, Pope Gregory relented, and the Emperor was received back into the Christian family. But the point had been made. What came to be known as the Investiture Controversy demonstrated the Papacy’s power to kings throughout Europe and, for centuries, sovereign monarchs cowed before the Pope and the Church. I first heard this story in high school, and I’ve never forgotten it because my adolescent mind could not imagine any Head of State, even of the smallest nation, kneeling before a non-state authority. It just served to remind me how different things were now. No President would ever be caught in such a position, I thought. And then I read President Obama’s speech and could only wonder, “How long has the President been kneeling?” Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest that he might have been in this position for a very long time – we are just now beginning to take notice. But what’s worse is that Mr. Obama’s kneeling reveals that American democracy is imperiled. A democratic nation should be ruled by the many, not the few. Yet, the Chamber of Commerce is attempting to determine the economic, and thus political, fate of our nation. Like religious authorities of the first millennium, business has asserted its dominance over the affairs of sovereign men. What is to be done? The responses of both the political Right and Left have been unimpressive. The political right would have us believe that the President has been hostile to business. If he would only be friendlier to business interests and stop confusing them with unnecessary regulations, the economy would jump-start. But the truth is that President Obama has been more than neighborly, to the tune of $700 billion. He’s promised more in his State of the Union, saying the U.S. would focus on infrastructure and technology spending. All this and the Right still thinks that he’s hostile? They must be taking that fruitcake joke seriously! If the Right thinks Mr. Obama has been too hostile, the Left believes he’s been too friendly. They look at his Cabinet and Staff and hold their noses. His inner circle reeks of Wall Street types and centrists like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and new White House Chief of Staff William Daley. Too much money and too little concern for the disadvantaged, critics shout. Cornel West has gone so far as to pose the most existential of questions to the President: “How deep is your love for poor and working people?” The problem with this question is that it could be turned right around and posed to the American Left. This is not to say that Mr. Obama has not clung to the center, but did he have a choice? After 2008, the legions of young, independent, and African American voters that helped Mr. Obama secure the presidency abandoned the Democrats in the midterm elections. When he needed them most, they didn’t turn up to the ballot box and, thus, we saw Democratic majorities shredded in both the House and the Senate. It’s no surprise then that the President compromised with Republicans on extending tax cuts for the rich. He didn’t have the legislative support to do otherwise. But he did secure unemployment benefits for over 14 million Americans who need them. Is that not love? And, if that’s not enough, let’s remember, if raising one child takes a village, it takes more than one man to raise a nation. In short, the Left would rather chastise President Obama than help him to his feet, while the Right would prefer to ask him to lie down flat on his belly and grovel (as though that would help). None of this serves the interests of the American people. What the Right and Left seem to be missing is that this isn’t about one man. The way the Chamber and corporate business interests approach the President speaks volumes about how they treat each of us. It is no wonder then that, as Mr. Obama is being cowed, millions of Americans are unemployed, millions more are underemployed, and states are either going into the red, forcing their citizens to do without vital services, or both. The Nation’s fate is tied to its President’s, and as long as he is kept kneeling, America will not move forward. Corporate business interests have had a strangle hold on Washington for many decades now. And the President’s kneeling reveals that there is no easy way to break this corporate death grip. One thing is clear, however: It is in our interest – Left, Right and, yes, Tea Party – to form a collective bulwark against the Chamber and its attempts to determine our political futures, to tell the Chamber that a free people will not bend before the will of business as man once bent before the will of God. Because, if we fail to stand together, we’ll all be left with cold (wet) feet.

Read the full article →

Wall Street fluctuate at Closing…

February 9, 2011

Wall Street fluctuate at Closing…

Read the full article →

Insider Trading Accusations Describe Network Of Hedge Fund Corruption

February 8, 2011

In the latest charges to be brought against Wall Street financiers, Federal authorities depict insider trading in dramatic detail. Two hedge fund managers — Samir Barai and Donald Longueuil — were arrested Tuesday morning on charges of insider trading, Bloomberg reports. Two others — portfolio manager Noah Freeman and analyst Jason Pflaum — pleaded guilty. The charges are the latest example of a Federal crackdown on insider trading that the Wall Street Journal detailed in November. In a pair of documents, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation describe an illegal exchange of information, which allegedly allowed hedge funds to reap $30 million in profits. According to the Federal complaints, employees at publicly traded technology companies sold secret information about those companies to workers at hedge funds, which then used that information to make big trades in the companies’ stock. The information was enormously profitable for the firms that received it, according to the court documents. Many of the allegations involve Winifred Jiau, who, the documents say, was employed by various technology companies and, at the same time, by Primary Global Research LLC, as a “private expert.” PGR would allegedly receive information from Jiau and then pass it on to clients, including Freeman and Barai. In May 2008, for instance, Jiau allegedly gave Freeman and Barai early information about the earnings of Marvell Technology Group. According to the SEC, Barai’s hedge fund subsequently reversed its short position on Marvell’s stock, and reaped close to $1 million in profits and avoided losses. In another case, Freeman earned about $9.7 million for his hedge fund, after learning secret information, the SEC says. The FBI documents add more color to the accusations. In November last year, after he read about the probe into insider trading, Barai allegedly wrote to Pflaum from his BlackBerry: – This scope is said to focus on the use of so-called expert network firms – Concern for years that some experts may be passing out confi [meaning, confidential] info about to go public cos [meaning, companies] to traders…. – [The Firm] was only one named!!!! – F*****ck The next morning he said, according to the FBI: – Didn’t sleep much either. – I dunno – I think we ok tho – I think U just go into office – Shred as much as u can He also said, according to the FBI: – Let’s not worry…. – No evidence we got exact info – So it doesn’t matter…. – Forget the past – No proof – So ur fine During a conversation between Freeman and Longueuil, which they recorded, they describe how to destroy electronic evidence, the FBI says. From the document: Freeman then remarked, “I don’t see how you get rid of this sh*t,” to which LONGUEUIL explained, “Oh, it’s easy. You take two pairs of pliers, and then you rip it open … and then, it’s just a piece of NAND. … So I just f*cking ripped it apart right there. … I had two external drives that had like wafer numbers on ‘em. F*ckin’ pulled the external drives apart. Destroyed the platter. … Put ‘em into four separate little baggies, and then at 2a.m. … 2a.m. on a Friday night, I put this stuff inside my black North Face [u/i] jacket, … and leave the apartment and I go on like a twenty block walk around the city … and try to find a, a garbage truck … and threw the sh*t in the back of like random garbage trucks, different garbage trucks.” Longueuil and Freeman have been accused of insider trading while they were employees of SAC Capital Advisors, the $12 billion hedge fund run by Steven A. Cohen. The company released a statement saying it is “outraged by the alleged actions of two former employees, which required active circumvention of our compliance policies and are egregious violations of our ethical standards.” Cohen, who is worth more than $6 billion , and who owns artist Damien Hirst’s embalmed tiger shark, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living,” has been sued repeatedly by his ex-wife, Patricia Cohen. In the latest version of the suit, she alleges that Cohen himself participated in insider trading. From the suit : Such privileged information was provided to Steven as part of his relationship with Mr. Newberg and as part of an effort to “take care of one another.” They sometimes referred to their group of Wharton friends as “the Wharton mafia.” READ the complaints below, from the SEC and the FBI: comp-pr2011-40 CNBC_Barai_et_al_Complaint

Read the full article →

Wall Street managed to close on Green…

February 8, 2011

Wall Street managed to close on Green…

Read the full article →

The Big Problem For Young Workers: Getting A Full-Time Job

February 7, 2011

NEW YORK (By Kristina Cooke) – Shanee Greenidge of Boston has been searching for full-time work since she dropped out of high school in 2009 and took a string of part-time jobs to help her mother pay bills. “I’m looking for any type of full-time job. I don’t care what it is, I really need something,” said Greenidge, 20. Her situation is typical of millions of young Americans caught up in the aftermath of the country’s deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Greenidge has held a number of part-time jobs in the past two years, including work as a landscaper, but nothing to put her on a permanent career path. Even for part-time retail jobs, she said, she is competing with people with college degrees or years of experience. “There’s a lot of competition. It sometimes feels like I don’t stand a chance,” she said. The number of Americans working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job or because their hours were cut more than doubled from around 4 million in 2007 to more than 9 million in 2009. The number is edging lower, but as of January 2011, 8.4 million were still working part-time because of the weak economy, according to U.S. payrolls data issued on Friday. The U.S. unemployment rate has fallen to 9 percent, but if involuntary part-time workers and people who are not actively looking for work are counted, it stands at 16.1 percent, according to government data. Andrew Sum, an economics professor at Northeastern University in Boston, said past recessions suggest it will take several years to make a significant dent in the number of underemployed Americans. “It takes really strong three or four years of growth until you get a big push down in this number,” he said. “There are a large number of employers who are not sure about future demand. So they want to keep the cost down.” But the cost of being underemployed is “huge,” both for those desperate for more work hours — who tend to be young adults, less-educated and blue-collar workers — and the broader economy, Sum said. Most part-time employees work half the hours of full-time employees and often do not have benefits such as health insurance and pensions, Sum said. That puts a strain on already stretched public services. Underemployed workers tend to get less training at work and earn less in the future than full-time colleagues, he said. These lower earnings hold back their spending on goods and services, which drives the U.S. economy. Part-time workers on low incomes are also more likely to need social services such as food stamps, even as their lower wages and expenditures reduce their tax contributions, adding to U.S. fiscal strains. Neil Sullivan, executive director at the Boston Private Industry Council, said the difficulty young people have getting a firm foothold in the job market is especially worrying. “Disconnected youth are the ones that do the most harm to themselves and the community,” Sullivan said. “You can find them on the street corners all around urban America and there are few prospects for them apart from part-time retail.” NO EXPERIENCE, NO JOB Melissa Rodrigues, 25, who recently graduated with a bachelor degree in sports sciences, works part-time looking after children at an after-school club while she looks for a permanent job. Many peers who graduated with her, she said, are waitressing or going back to school. “I’ve applied to a lot of places, but they want experience. They want two years, for everything,” she said. Even those with more experience can find it tough to regain their footing in the labor market. Beth Tarbell, 46, was laid off from her job writing procedures and safety manuals for the restaurant industry in Austin, Texas, last spring and since then has been working part-time, off and on. “I’m getting a bit nervous now,” she said. “I know people who are sleeping on other people’s couches and I am hoping I don’t become one of them,” she said. “I’ve had a former boss tell me, ‘I wish we could afford to bring you on full-time but we can’t.’” Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

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

February 6, 2011

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

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Dire Warnings From a Bear and His Top Stinkers

February 5, 2011

If anything, the latest bummer of an employment report, last month’s creation of just 36,000 jobs, versus a widely anticipated gain of 130,000 to 150,000 jobs, is a renewed S.O.S. that the wave of euphoria engulfing Wall Street may be way overdone. Apparently investors don’t want to hear — or they don’t believe — any dissent. Indicative of this, with the sizzling 12,000 Dow already up about 84% from its March 2009 low of around 6,500 and 20% since late August, investors are once again scurrying to the stock market on the heels of a peppier economy. Last month, for example, they snapped up an estimated $8.3 billion worth of U.S. equity mutual funds, the biggest such buying outburst since May of 2009. But where there’s assent, there’s always dissent just around the corner. One dissenter is Dallas portfolio manager John Del Vecchio, who believes the recent buyers are waking on thin ice, are way too late to the party and predicts a 9,000 Dow later this year, which reminded me — if he’s right — of a noteworthy comment by Robert Louis Stevenson: “Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.” He’s right. Just ask Egyptian president Hosni Mabarak; he can tell you all about it first hand. On a very different scale — call it a financial scale — Del Vecchio believes America’s more than 80 million stock owners should also prepare for their 2011 banquet of consequences. “I wouldn’t buy a stock now with counterfeit money,” he says. That’s highly contrary stuff, given the widespread bullish sentiment sweeping Wall Street. Del Vecchio is practically a lone voice in the wilderness. Still, give the man his due because the 35-year-old portfolio manager is gutsy enough to bet his career he’s right. In effect, he’s essentially attempting to do what not even the bravest matador would do — basically enter a bull ring armed with little more than a ball point pen. Essentially, that’s what our bold market matador did January 27 by launching, in what appeared to be an act of atrocious timing, given the vigor of the market, an exchange-traded short fund — AdvisorShares Active Bear. The Dallas-based fund which manages assets of more than $25 million, is traded on the Big Board under the symbol HDGE. Its thrust: to short equities of companies that it concludes has low earnings quality, aggressive accounting and which may also be understating expenses. Del Vecchio, a forensic accountant and a former hedge fund manager the past 2.5 years at the Ranger Capital Group in Dallas where he averaged a 16.5% gain during that period, singled out the government’s inability to create jobs as one of the key reasons for his bearish outlook. He also spotlighted a number of his top stinkers, stocks he’s short and sees underperforming the market this year by about 20%. These include such well known names as Bank of America, Amazon.Com, Juniper Networks, Avon Products, Kohl’s Corp., Abercrombie & Fitch, Yahoo, Salesforce.Com, Visa, Broadcom Corp. and Stanley Black & Decker. As far as the economy goes, Del Vecchio is convinced it won’t really come back until jobs come back. And QE2 (quantitative easing) is not creating jobs, he says. In conjunction with this, he sees the economy continuing to suffer from shrinking incomes, people dipping into savings to pay their bills, inflation (namely higher food and gas prices) and deepening housing woes. As such, in contrast to most economists, he expects very little economic growth year, with the likelihood of a double-dip recession starting some time in the second half. The economy aside, Del Vecchio also believes the market is foolishly brushing off the Egyptian mess, In particular, he points to the danger of extremists infiltrating any new leadership. “The market has now added a new element of uncertainty,” he says. The manager is also worried about the overwhelming amount of bullish sentiment pervading Wall Street, noting there are three bullish investment advisers for every bearish adviser, that 93% of stocks are trading above their 200-day moving average and that 80% of equities are trading above their 50-day moving average. The risk here, says Del Vecchio, is there’s so much complacency, with too many investors following the herd. The added danger, he notes, is that “investors could follow the herd off the roof.” An obvious question: With the market as strong as it is, what is the trigger that could drive the Dow down to 9,000? Del Vecchio offers two of them: debt rollovers involving Europe or U.S. municipalities. Running out his current list of his stinkers, our bear points to such additional shorts as Hasbro, Digital River, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Herbalife, Netapp, Citrix Systems, Paccar, Netgear, Foot Locker, Trinity Industries, QLogic, Sandisk Corp., WMS Industries, Rackspace Hosting, Expeditors International, Asiainfo-Linkage and Pegasystems. A golf lover, Del Vecchio shoots in the high 70s and low 80s, he tells me. That’s impressive. The $64,000 question, of course, is whether a bear can tee off as well in a bull market? What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

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

February 5, 2011

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

Read the full article →

Hackers Reportedly Penetrated Nasdaq Computer Network Multiple Times

February 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — A federal government official tells The Associated Press that investigators are trying to identify computer hackers who have repeatedly broken into the network of the company that runs the Nasdaq Stock Market. The official says that the hackers haven’t compromised the exchange’s trading platform and that investigators are looking into a range of possible motives for the cyberattacks – from financial gain to a national security threat. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiry by the FBI and Secret Service is continuing. The official says the penetrations occurred over the course of more than a year. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the hacking. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below. The computer network that runs the Nasdaq Stock Market has been penetrated by hackers multiple times during the past year, according to a newspaper report. The Wall Street Journal reported on its website late Friday that federal investigators are trying to identify the perpetrators and their motive. People familiar with the investigation say the exchange’s trading platform, the system which executes trades, was not compromised, according to the report. A person involved in the Nasdaq investigation told the newspaper that so far the perpetrators “appear to have just been looking around.” Nasdaq officials declined to comment. A telephone message left with the FBI’s office in New York was not immediately returned. Possible motives include financial gain, theft of trade secrets or a national security threat designed to damage the exchange, the newspaper said. The Secret Service initiated the probe involving New York-based Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. last year. White House officials also have been informed. Investigators have not yet been able to track the cyber break-ins to any specific individual or country, but people with knowledge of the case told the newspaper some evidence points to Russia. However, they point out that hackers could be just using Russia as a conduit. In 1999, a group of hackers calling itself “United Loan Gunmen” infiltrated the computer that runs the websites for Nasdaq and the American Stock Exchange. The hackers left a taunting message and also claimed to have briefly created for itself an e-mail account on Nasdaq’s computer system, suggesting a broader breach in security. But at the time, Nasdaq officials said there was no evidence they manipulated financial data.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The Jobs Report, and America’s Two Economies

February 4, 2011

At a time when corporate profits are through the roof, the Dow is flirting with 12,000, Wall Street paychecks are fat again, and big corporations are sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash, you’d expect jobs be coming back. But you’d be wrong. The U.S. economy added just 36,000 jobs in January, according to today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Remember, 125,000 are needed just to keep up with the increase in the population of Americans wanting and needing work. And 300,000 a month are needed — continuously, for five years — if we’re to get back to anything like the employment we had before the Great Recession. In other words, today’s employment report should be sending alarm bells all over official Washington. Granted, unusually bad weather may have accounted for some of the reluctance of employers to hire in January. But even considering the weather, the economy is still terribly sick. (Technical note: The official rate of unemployment fell to 9 percent from 9.4 percent, but that’s because more workers have left the labor market, too discouraged to continue looking for work. The official rate reflects how many people are actively looking for work.) We have two economies. The first is in recovery. The second remains in a continuous depression. The first is a professional, college-educated, high-wage economy centered in New York and Washington, that’s living well off of global corporate profits. Corporations continue to make money by selling abroad from their foreign operations while cutting costs (especially labor) here at home. Wall Street is making money by taking the Fed’s free money and speculating with it. The richest 10 percent of Americans, holding 90 percent of all financial assets, are riding the wave. And their upscale spending has given high-end retailers and producers a bounce. The second is most of the rest of America, and it’s still struggling with a mountain of debt, declining home prices, and job losses. In coming months most Americans will also be contending with sharply rising prices of food and fuel. Our representatives in Washington see and hear mostly the first economy. The business press reports mainly on the first economy. Corporate and Wall Street economists are concerned largely with the first economy. But the second economy will determine our politics in 2012 and beyond. And not even the first can be sustained permanently on its own. Corporate profits cannot continue to rise on the basis of foreign sales (which are slowing as Europe adopts austerity and China raises interest rates), the purchases of the richest 10 percent of Americans (which are dependent on a rising stock market), and cost-cutting measures at home (which are necessarily limited). Without a strong and broadly-based middle-class recovery, America’s big money economy will fall in on itself. A major stock market “correction” is a certainty. 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 →

Financial Crisis Prosecutions On Wall Street Slow To Develop Despite Cries For Justice

February 4, 2011

NEW YORK — After the last major banking crisis, some two decades ago, roughly 3,800 bankers were prosecuted and sentenced to prison terms, by the Justice Department’s count. Yet this time, some four years after the economy descended into the most punishing financial crisis since the Great Depression, the public still waits for the Obama administration to deliver a similar kind of justice. The 2007-’09 financial crisis was “avoidable,” a bipartisan, congressionally-appointed panel concluded last week. Mortgage fraud “flourished” in the run up to the collapse. Securities fraud was apparently widespread. “Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford and that could cause massive losses to investors in mortgage securities,” the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission wrote in its report on the causes of the collapse . About $1 trillion worth of home loans made from 2005 to 2007 were “fraudulent,” the commission said, citing testimony from experts. The Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, told the commission that she defined fraud to include lenders’ “sale of unaffordable or structurally-unfair mortgage products to borrowers.” And yet, the perp walk so many Americans crave — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once referred to it as the “very deep public desire for Old Testament justice” — hasn’t occurred. Wall Street figures have largely gone untouched. Bank directors kept their jobs. In a sign that perhaps the fallout from the crisis has passed, outsized compensation is back. “People need to go to jail,” said Liz Ryan Murray, policy director of National People’s Action, an advocacy organization that helped launch the website CrimeShouldntPay.com. “If you steal something, you go to jail. If you falsify documents, you go to jail. Why doesn’t that apply to big bank executives?” Officials from the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been asked those questions before — often during testimony before various congressional panels. DOJ prosecutes crimes, while the SEC files civil cases, though it can also refer cases to Justice for criminal prosecution. But those powers haven’t been used enough, experts say. The law-enforcement agencies suffer from a lack of combativeness. They’re handicapped by the fact that they’re looking at potential violations not while they’re in the act, but long after they were committed. And they deal with complicated transactions that could be difficult to explain to juries, rendering their efforts to take cases to trial more challenging. “These are tremendously difficult cases to make,” said retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin, who worked at the SEC for 20 years, seven of them as head of the commission’s enforcement division. Referring to the most prevalent allegations of fraud, those involving home mortgages and the financial instruments they were packed into, Sporkin said law enforcement is likely having trouble “finding where it started, what the person did, and where the fraud is.” Last year, the Justice Department promised to take swift action. “By taking dramatic action, our goal is not just to hold accountable those whose conduct may have contributed to the last meltdown, but to deter such future conduct as well,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in January 2010 during testimony before the crisis commission. A year later, that action hasn’t materialized, despite evidence of conduct that would seem to merit it. Last week, the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that banks that sold home-loan bonds often didn’t disclose key details that would have helped investors accurately judge the quality of the investments. Investors were rarely told, for example, whether the mortgages failed to meet the banks’ own standards. That failure raises “the question of whether the disclosures were materially misleading, in violation of the securities laws,” the crisis commission said. It referred several financial-industry figures to law enforcement for potential prosecution. “I’m frustrated,” former Sen. Ted Kaufman told Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general heading the Justice Department’s criminal division, and Robert Khuzami, head of enforcement at the SEC, during a September hearing. “We have seen very little in the way of senior officer- or boardroom-level prosecutions of the people on Wall Street who brought this country to the brink of financial ruin. Why is that? Is it because none of the behavior in question was criminal? Is it because too much time passed before the investigators got serious? I mean is it — has the trail gone cold?” Or, the Delaware Democrat asked, “Is it because the law favors the wealthy and powerful?” Jeff Connaughton, Kaufman’s former chief of staff, said prosecutors and enforcement officials at the SEC aren’t being aggressive enough. Last November, Connaughton delivered a stinging speech to about 300 regulators and Wall Street executives at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York slamming law enforcement’s response to the financial crisis. Fraud was at the heart of the crisis, he said. And law enforcement’s response has been inadequate, to the point that it is unlikely to deter future financial fraud. “Where are the cases?” Connaughton asked. “There have been many successful cases brought against mortgage brokers, as well as an impressive list of recent cases against Ponzi schemes and insider trading.” But after the Justice Department in 2009 lost a high-profile case against two hedge-fund managers at the defunct investment firm Bear Stearns Cos., Connaughton noted, there have not been any additional criminal indictments at major firms for behavior connected with the financial crisis. “They realized how difficult it is to make a case” in the litigation against Bear Stearns, Sporkin said. “These are not easy cases.” Sporkin added that the SEC and the Justice Department may now be “gun-shy.” In September, Kaufman said he had thus far “waited in vain for the sort of prosecutions that we predicted would come” as a result of the financial industry’s near-collapse. “Criminals on Wall Street must be held to account,” he said. DOJ and SEC spokesmen declined to make officials available to answer questions on the record. Instead, the spokesmen referred questions to previous congressional testimony and public speeches. The SEC said it had pursued executives at New Century Financial, once the nation’s second-largest subprime mortgage lender; Goldman Sachs Group; Citigroup; and a top executive at Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, once the nation’s largest nonbank mortgage lender. Most of those cases have been settled. “We’ve brought a series of important enforcement actions in areas that most people associate with the financial crisis, and recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors in those cases,” Lorin Reisner, deputy director of the SEC’s enforcement division, wrote in an email. But, he added, “there is more work to be done.” The Justice Department also indicted the Taylor, Bean & Whitaker executive, Lee B. Farkas, and is said to be pursing a criminal investigation of Angelo Mozilo, the former chief executive of Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s biggest mortgage lender. In a November speech, Breuer, the assistant attorney general, touted Justice’s few victories and explained the department’s philosophy. It’s emblematic of law enforcement’s overall tone towards the financial sector, experts say. “There are some who, despite this track record, have expressed disappointment that we have not yet criminally prosecuted the leading financial institutions or their principals for conduct that may have helped lead to the financial crisis,” Breuer said Nov. 4 in New York. “Though I can certainly understand the impulse and desire to hold someone accountable, I also want to stress an equally important principle – that we can, and will, only bring charges when the facts and the law convince us that we can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Added Breuer: “We simply can’t, and won’t, indict people based on outrage or suspicion alone.” While he oversaw the SEC’s enforcement division, Sporkin took a different approach. The former judge, who also served as general counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency after he left the SEC, said his philosophy could best be described as “getting in the first strike.” “What I tried to do was be ahead of the curve,” Sporkin said. “Rather than react, I was looking for the issues and then striking almost as you would in a war.” Sporkin’s team, he said, looked for laws that enabled them to go after what they viewed as fraudulent activity. “We were being instinctive. We were using our abilities to say, ‘What the hell is going on here?’ and then using the law to go after” corporations and Wall Street firms engaged in wrongdoing, he said. Sporkin’s approach stands opposite that of today’s law enforcement, said Joshua Rosner, managing director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co. “In the old days, [the SEC] was not shy about bringing actions against even the largest firms and would litigate,” Rosner said. “The offender knew that settling without admission of wrongdoing was not an option.” Rosner said the risk that prosecution poses to a firm’s reputation is much more effective when trying to change future behavior, as opposed to the SEC’s current approach of settlements and fines. He added that the SEC appears to be going after small-time crooks, rather than big firms on Wall Street. “The SEC might as well list the penalties today so banks can just build it into their necessary rates of returns on infractions — kind of like the back of a parking ticket,” he said. The former SEC enforcement chief said another problem hindering current prosecution of financiers is the lack of dramatics associated with today’s financial crimes. “You got to make it sound like it’s somebody coming to you, knocking on your head, and taking money out of your pocket,” Sporkin said of his approach to juries and explaining financial wrongdoing to the public. “You just can’t try these as some kind of academic case.” “Too bad he’s not at the SEC now,” Rosner said of Sporkin. Likewise, Connaughton, Sen. Kaufman’s former chief of staff, said law enforcement “needs someone like a Stanley Sporkin.” Even Sporkin, however, stressed that prosecutors and enforcement attorneys at the SEC face an uphill battle. “How do you tell a jury that a person who didn’t disclose something in a report should go to jail?” he asked. “These are hard cases to dramatize.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

CFPB May Crowdsource Payday Lender Crackdown

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rolled out a preliminary version of its website on Thursday, and with it a few indications about the agency’s plans to crowdsource prospective regulations that may soon target shady payday lenders. The CFPB hopes to use its website at consumerfinance.gov to collect data not just from banks, but from consumers, in order to monitor trends in various lending markets. While they’re still devising specific plans, the agency hopes to have an active public presence, with a simple, closely-watched platform for borrowers to submit complaints. Elizabeth Warren, an adviser to President Barack Obama who is charged with setting up the bureau, told HuffPost in October that she hopes to use crowdsourcing to enhance the regulator’s impact. One of the agency’s crowdsourcing initiatives may involve payday lenders and check-cashing shops. Because these businesses are often small operations, they can be difficult for federal officials to track, appearing in a neighborhood only to disappear a few weeks later. Citizens could organize to take photos of new payday lending or check cashing products, and upload those photos to the CFPB website. That could help notify other members of the neighborhood about potentially-troublesome local companies, as well as helping the regulator build a list of shops to investigate. As Warren said in a speech at the University of California at Berkeley in October, “Through crowd-sourcing technology, consumers can deal collectively with those who would take advantage of them–and can reward those who provide excellent products and services.” Payday lenders provide short-term, high-interest loans to consumers that critics say are designed to be difficult to repay, often encouraging consumers to repay one payday loan with another. This can lead to a vicious — and expensive — cycle of debt. Members of the U.S. military are a particular target for high-interest lenders. A 2006 Department of Defense report concluded that payday lending was having a negative effect on military readiness and troop morale. The CFPB is yet to formally detail any specific programs, but the bureau hopes to submit new consumer-protection ideas to the public on its website and allow borrowers to voice approval or disapproval through an online voting system. The bureau’s website stresses the struggles facing borrowers. A “Protecting You” page features three stories from borrowers who have had problems with their bank, emphasizing that the CFPB hopes to respond to similar cases. The new website’s design represents a considerable change of tone from the consumer-complaint resources available from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, previously the ostensible go-to for borrowers. The OCC’s consumer call center, based in Houston, has long been criticized by state banking regulators and public-interest groups for being inattentive to consumer complaints. In December 2007 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Affairs Director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, noted that some state regulators referred to the call center as “OCC’s black hole in Houston.” The OCC, which declined to comment for this story, rolled out its helpwithmybank.gov website in 2007 in response to criticism that its call center is clunky, but many consumer advocates say the regulator remains clunky and unhelpful. The banking horror stories on the CFPB’s site are reproduced below: Karen, 32, is an airport security supervisor from Pennsylvania. When she refinanced her mortgage, her broker promised her a low fixed-rate loan but instead gave her two more expensive loans. Why? She didn’t know it at the time, but giving her both a large adjustable-rate first loan and a second smaller loan increased the fees she paid to the broker. Karen told the lender what she had in savings and her income, but the broker changed the numbers on her form. (Some brokers changed numbers in order to make borrowers eligible for higher loan amounts than they could otherwise qualify for–and to close a deal for a bigger mortgage that will give the broker bigger fees.) The broker scheduled Karen for a late-night closing and did not give her the closing documents at the time of closing, so she was not aware of these changes. The consumer bureau will work to prevent similar abuses, in part by enforcing the requirement in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that mortgage lenders document and verify a borrower’s income or assets before making a loan to ensure that the borrower can afford to repay it. Robin, 55, is a seventh-grade science teacher from Georgia. Her credit card company increased the rate on her existing credit card balance from 10.90% to 17.90%, even though she paid her account on time every month. The increase has been particularly difficult for her family because her husband’s landscaping business has been hard hit recently by the financial crisis. The consumer bureau will enforce the Credit CARD Act, which President Obama signed in 2009 to ban credit card issuers from arbitrarily raising rates on existing balances and other unfair practices. The CFPB will also be responsible for updating the credit card rules moving forward. Andrew, 62, is a retired Baltimore police officer and Vietnam veteran who manages a fitness center for seniors. Andrew had both a primary checking account and a separate “veteran’s account” in which he received $123 in benefits each month. In 2009, his bank made a mistake that caused confusion about a replacement debit card for one of his accounts. The bank had also automatically enrolled Andrew’s veteran’s account, including transactions using the debit card, in “overdraft” protection that he never asked for–a practice that has since been prohibited. When Andrew used the replacement card–expecting it to withdraw from his primary checking account–he was hit with hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees on his veteran’s account. Andrew discovered the bank’s error and explained the situation, but the bank was willing to refund only part of the fees. The consumer bureau will examine big banks to ensure that they are following the rules that now require banks to give consumers a real choice of whether to join overdraft protection programs for ATM and debit card transactions. The CFPB will update those rules to respond to changes in the marketplace over time.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Jobs Crisis in Real World… Just Not in D.C.

February 3, 2011

Who is our economy for? Who is our government for? undergoing a transition from “We, the People” democratic government to a plutocracy run by and for the wealthy. One indicator of this transition is the way the D.C. Elite respond to unemployment. 9-10% unemployment used to be a national emergency. Now it’s a yawn. What The Washington Paper Says The Washington Post has a front-page story, ” Why does Fresno have thousands of job openings — and high unemployment? ” that says the problem is really “structural,” a skills gap, and there is little we can do. This is significant because so many people who make policy read the Washington Post while sitting in their nice, expensive restaurants. Stories like this risk that they will think that there really are plenty of jobs out there, but the serfs just aren’t up to taking them, or are too spoiled, but in any event there is no problem that needs solving, and call the lobbyist because this month’s check is late. Meanwhile, anyone in the real world outside of Washington or Wall Street reading about “thousands” of job openings going unfilled immediately knows something is fishy. In fact, if this story ran on the front page outside of DC or Wall Street we might even need to worry about Egypt-style riots. Anyone on the same side of the continent as Fresno knows that there are not “thousands’ of unfilled job openings. There might be thousands of foreclosures, or thousands of people in food lines, or thousands of people whose unemployment has run out but there are not thousands of unfilled job openings. What The Local Paper Says The Fresno Bee has a different story to tell, ” EDITORIAL: President should come see impact of joblessness in Valley “: The economy may be improving, but it would be difficult to persuade the thousands of out-of-work Valley residents that things are looking up. The six Valley communities cited in a U.S. Labor Department report have unemployment rates that run from 16.4% in Hanford-Corcoran to 18.6% in Merced. The other Valley cities on the list are Fresno (16.9%), Visalia-Porterville (16.8%), Modesto (17.2%) and Stockton (17.5%). . . . The nation’s economic recovery will not be complete until Americans go back to work. At every level of government, the goal should be to implement policies that improve consumer confidence and encourage businesses to hire workers. The Fresno Want Ads The Fresno Bee help-wanted ads tell the story. There are 963 “Sales” jobs listed, but the first 519 of those are at the same “company,” called “Work At Home Jobs, Inc.” and are mostly the same “job,” if you can call it that. The next 136 are a different “company” and the “jobs” are calling people from home to sell them wireless cell service — on commission. The next 52 are the same deal but a different “company,” selling internet from home, on commission. The next 46, same story. Etc. The next category after Sales is “Business development”, with 691 jobs, 466 are “work at home” and many of the rest are the same jobs at the same companies as the “sales” jobs. The next two categories are “General Business” and “Other” and, again, list the same “jobs” at the same “companies.” The next category is “Business Opportunity.” I challenge you to guess what “companies” and “jobs” are listed. (Hint: it’s the same ones again.) Supply And Demand Among the few specifics in the story is the example of “Jain Irrigation, which cannot find all the workers it wants for $15-an-hour jobs running expensive machinery that spins out precision irrigation tubing at 600 feet a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” $15-an-hour is just above the poverty level for a family of four, at about 130%. Dean Baker, writing in ” The Problem of Structrual Unemployment: Really Incompetent Managers ,” makes the point that a company complaining they can’t find skilled workers at $15 an hour needs to think about raising their offer. Baker writes, It presents comments from one employer who complains that he can’t find workers for jobs that pay $15 an hour. This is not a very good wage. It would be difficult for someone to support themselves and their children on a job paying $15 an hour ($30,000 a year). If the company president understand economics, then he would raise wages enough so that the jobs were attractive to workers who have the necessary skills. If they can’t get workers, they should know that they need to bump up the wage offered until they can. That is about as basic as it gets in the supply/demand equation. Can’t Sell The House And Move Part of this problem is the housing market. If Fresno really doesn’t have the skilled workers businesses need, Silicon Valley and Las Vegas certainly do, and have very high unemployment rates, but the people there can’t sell their houses and move! And even if they could sell they are “underwater,” will come out of the sale owing a ton of money that they can’t make up by taking a $15-per-hour job! Externalizing Training Costs Companies expect workers to already be trained, “externalizing” one more cost onto local communities, while shopping for the lowest tax areas to locate. California has a budget crisis and is cutting back on funding for the community colleges and other programs where people are trained for jobs. One reason for the budget crisis is businesses demanding ever-lower taxes, or playing communities and states against each other for tax incentives to relocate, using property tax avoidance schemes and so many other ways to get out of paying something back to the public for the public investment that enabled them to prosper . The Real Problem Out here in the real world the real problem is not “structural,” it is that there just are not enough jobs , they don’t pay enough, “free trade” deals have lowered wages and undermined our manufacturing base, there is not enough demand in the economy and the government is not doing its job of picking up the slack and after 30 years of tax-cutting the infrastructure is crumbling and not supporting competitiveness for our businesses. There are millions of unemployed and millions of infrastructure jobs that need doing. There is a new green energy and manufacturing revolution going on in the world and we do not have an economic/industrial policy to capture our share. There is problem after problem that is not being addressed by a government captured by interests. DC Avoids Dealing With The Problem It seems that the DC Elite will do anything to avoid just seeing what is in front of their faces. Clearly we have lost jobs from trade deals, Wall Street financialization and domination, lack of investment in infrastructure and education, etc. But the DC Elite come up with a thousand reasons not to fix these because the interests that benefit from those deals have influence over them. Our budget deficit is obviously from tax cuts and military spending — but you will never, ever, ever, ever hear that. Instead we hear job-killing “austerity” solutions that avoid asking the wealthy few to pitch in. On one issue after another, the DC Elite provide cover for the wealthy elite interests who now control DC. The transition from We, the People democracy to a plutocracy of, by and for the wealthy few is nearly complete. The real problem is not a breakdown of the structure of the job market and is not a mismatch between the jobs and the skills, it is a lack of jobs because of lack of demand, and a mismatch between who our government and economy are supposed to work for, and the interests that have brought this about. March 10 Summit on Jobs and America’s Future On March 10, 2011, the Summit on Jobs and America’s Future will bring together leaders and activists who understand that America faces a jobs crisis — and who are committed to building a political movement for sustainable economic growth, dynamic job creation, and a revival of the American economy. It’s free, $15 if you want lunch . Beat that. This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Larry Hirsch: Wall Street Apologists Need to Acknowledge the Truth

February 2, 2011

The recently released Financial Crisis Inquiry Report makes it clear that there is enough blame to go around for the financial collapse of 2008. Wall Street hustlers looking to make quick bucks made huge bets on the housing bubble that ultimately came crashing down, the government not wanting to stop the good times did little to regulate Wall Street, the public bought into the dream and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too eagerly chased business. However, many on the right see no fault on Wall Street and blame the whole thing on Fannie and Freddie. How narrow-minded can they be? The chief man with blinders on appears to be Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute. He blames the whole crisis on Fannie and Freddie’s policies to buy more debt and spur homeownership. The Wall Streeters, he must believe, were just taking advantage of a market opportunity by doing all of their machinations to make more money. What makes this view even more incredible is that Mr. Wallison was on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commisssion so he had access to the facts, which say otherwise. But what do facts matter in the face of ideology? He must believe Wall Streeters have no free will but slavishly follow market opportunities. Frankly, I think coming up with the creative financial instruments they did, takes some initiative by the financial geniuses on Wall Street. One would think they would also be smart enough to analyze the downside of the deal. But isn’t this the problem. No one wants to look at the downside when things are good and money is easy. Why question it? Like many did not question Bernie Madoff, they did not question Fannie and Freddie’s policies and whether the housing market would go down. Instead taking some safe investments they continued to make bigger and bigger bets on housing. This is not Fannie and Freddie’s fault but Wall Street’s. Those that continue to apologize for Wall Street must realize this.

Read the full article →

Jonathan Tasini: Wall Street Pay ‘Vaults to Record Altitude’

February 2, 2011

Sometimes, I wonder whether we all live in a grand farce. But, actually, it’s a real-life story about a robbery of the people that continues every day — and today is no different. The robbers grow richer. From the Wall Street Journal , a story headlined: “On Street, Pay Vaults to Record Altitude”: When it comes to paychecks, Wall Street’s law of gravity is back in full force: What goes down must come back up. In 2010, total compensation and benefits at publicly traded Wall Street banks and securities firms hit a record of $135 billion, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal. The total is up 5.7% from $128 billion in combined compensation and benefits by the same companies in 2009 . The increase was fueled by a revenue rebound as the financial crisis recedes in the rearview mirror … “Things are shifting back to where they were before,” said J. Robert Brown, a law professor at the University of Denver who studies compensation and corporate-governance issues.[emphasis added] And: Bank of America Chief Executive Brian Moynihan got a 67% bump in his total compensation for 2010, the company said Monday. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tripled the salary of Chairman and CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein and increased his stock-based bonus 40% to $12.6 million. In some respects, this is reaffirming news — reaffirming in that, for those of us who have argued that nothing much has changed, this is concrete evidence. Let me make three points here. First, the notion that the “financial crisis” has receded is a perspective that millions of Americans do not share, and do not live. Those people are still coping with joblessness and homelessness and bankruptcy precisely because of the crisis caused by many of the people who are now being rewarded. Rather than jailing a lot of these folks, or at least firing them, the financial “community” rewards them. Second, the escalating pay serves notice that we are back to business as usual. The next bubble is just over the horizon. Third, and maybe most important, any “reforms,” particularly those in the Dodd-Frank bill, are honestly toothless for this reason: we have not truly made an effort to SHRINK the size of Wall Street and its influence on our economy. Remember, in the “good days” of Wall Street, when the Street said “cut your labor costs”, CEOs, always attentive to the level of their share price (which effected the stock options CEOs held), would go ahead and slash thousands of jobs — not because it necessarily helped the company’s overall performance but because the stock price might improve because well, Wall Street would be happy. Much of the financial sector’s money was tied up in leveraged buy-outs and corporate takeovers — this is precisely the kind of behavior, along with foolish so-called “free trade” deals and union busting, that has undercut the middle-class and set us on a course of a declining standard of living. None of that mindset has changed as we embark on that mission to “win the future.” That is the more dangerous message from the pay hikes: NOTHING HAS CHANGED . Seems to me that the next Tahrir Square should be around the Wall Street bull on lower Broadway in Manhattan.

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: Fraudclosure: Will State AGs Step Up to Their Moment in History?

February 2, 2011

Rumor has it that the 50-state attorneys general investigation into the Fraudclosure scandal is wrapping up. It’s time for a backbone check. Will the state attorneys general just ask the big banks and service providers to turn over a chunk of change from seemingly bottomless pockets? (This strategy was pursued by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) with little impact). Or will Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller take the lead in wrestling a real settlement out of the banks so that families hammered by unemployment and underemployment can stay in their homes? Widespread Criminality Americans know that the big banks and the mortgage service providers got us into this hole by pursuing an array of financial crimes. The SEC settlements alone have revealed a plethora of illegal, predatory and deceptive lending related to mortgages, securities fraud, accounting fraud, insider trading, brokerage fraud, bribery of government officials, criminal conflict of interest, deception of shareholders and investors, and more. Now the “robo-signing” scandal is pulling back the curtain on Act II of this white collar crime spree — revealing a new array of financial crimes by the very same institutions: robo-signing, fake witnesses, fake notaries, fake documents, fake attorneys, not to mention plain old theft as servicers rob consumers of hundreds or thousands of dollars in misapplied fees. There are additional crimes related to the way that banks have failed to correctly transfer promissory notes through the system and efforts to mislead and defraud investors. The short story is that many homeowners were foreclosed upon based on falsified documents by a bank who was not the true holder of the mortgage note. This is a crisis not only for individual homeowners, but investors who bought flawed mortgage-backed securities and for the financial system as a whole. Not a Single Prosecution of a Major Player Perverse incentives on Wall Street allowed top executives to make more money on flawed loans than boring old 30-year mortgages. Even though there is widespread agreement that Wall Street’s endless appetite for high-interest, high-fees loans to fuel the mortgage securitization machine had a causal role in supercharging the housing bubble, not one mortgage servicer provider or big bank CEO has been put in jail. This compares to over 1,000 successful prosecutions of top officers during the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s. While the SEC has been churning out fines resulting in a long list of “settlements”, Wall Street firms are beginning to set aside money and treat these actions merely as the cost of doing business. There is nothing more instructive than jail time, but the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been hoodwinked by America’s biggest hoodlums, preferring to arrest a string of penny-ante Jersey mobsters than the Mafioso hiding in plain sight at Wall Street and Broadway. The DOJ delights in arresting people like Vinny Carwash” Frogiero, Frank “Meatball” Ballantoni, Anthino “Hootie” Russo while Jamie “Pretty Boy” Dimon, Lloyd “Godswork” Blankfein and Vikram “Slumdog” Pandit collect record bonuses. History is Calling In the history of the financial crisis, state AGs have so far come out looking pretty good. State AGs were the first in the nation to recognize that the predatory lending practices of firms such as Ameriquest and Countrywide were a danger to consumers and to the entire U.S. economy. In 2004, they were radically preempted from taking action against these crimes by Bush-appointed federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Now state AGs have another moment to outshine negligent federal prosecutors. State AGs can take a series of actions that the Feds have failed to take. First of all, they can book the crooks and force top officers to trade pinstripes for jail stripes. Secondly, they can force the banks into settlements with individual homeowners that really take a bite out of their profits, complete with foreclosure redos and damages for harmed homeowners. They can also subject the banks to ongoing independent audits of their foreclosure procedures and they can demand that the banks force principle write downs and other across-the-board measures that will stabilize communities and the economy. February 3rd National Day of Action The rocking National People’s Action and other anti-foreclosure groups are calling for a national day of action tomorrow to urge the AGs to do the right thing. But why wait? You can go to BanskterUSA.org to email the lead investigator, Iowa AG Tom Miller, and urge him to do the right thing. You can also join thousands of people across the country by click here to find your AG’s phone number so you can ask him or her directly for meaningful action on foreclosure. If you are struggling with these issues, think about meeting up with your neighbors. “Mortgage Madness Meetups” are being facilitated by Huffington Post . The next worldwide meetup day is February 8th. Finally, if you are trapped in the snow today, check out Dylan Ratigan’s excellent series on the housing crisis “No Way to Live” on MSNBC.

Read the full article →

Goldman’s Cynical Assurances Notwithstanding, The Decade is Lost Already

February 2, 2011

Step back from the ledge, America. Scotch the gloomy talk of a Japan-style Lost Decade in which we sink into decline and marinate morosely there for years. We’re back, baby! So says a cheery depiction of these times from the wizards at Goldman Sachs (a firm that, come to think of it, played a starring role in trashing our economic security). The report from Goldman’s Investment Strategy Group, and served up here as evidence of happy times by the credulous folks at Politico’s Morning Money, dismisses suggestions that the American economy might yet confront substantial problems. “The U.S. Will Not Face a ‘Lost Decade,’” declares a subheading in the report, which later calls the odds of that prospect “very remote indeed.” Instead, “America’s structural resilience, fortitude and ingenuity will carry the economy and financial markets in 2011 — and beyond.” Lest this hyperventilating prose fail to provoke the intended response, that last clause sits beneath a picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware. (Hats off to the creative geniuses inside Goldman’s public relations machine, who apparently aim to redefine doubts about the economy — and Goldman’s lucrative cheerleading — as downright un-American.) But one problem with all this soothing talk: As millions of ordinary people can readily attest, we are already deep into a Lost Decade and then some. Rescuing ourselves from this era of diminished expectations is going to require far more than disseminating rosy projections about this year’s stock market while touting the innate power of American business. It demands a serious-minded plan to get people back to work so we can wean ourselves off the investment fantasies propagated by Goldman and its Wall Street cohorts. A brief consideration of reality comes in handy here. The U.S. economy slipped officially into recession in December 2007 and remained there until June of 2009, not for nothing earning the moniker “the Great Recession.” During those 19 brutal months, the economy lost a net 7.3 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the year and a half since, the economy has gained back a grand total of 72,000 jobs — not even half what most economists say we need in a single month just to absorb new entrants to the labor force. And that concentrated period of pain landed on top of a so-called economic expansion that was as weak as any on record. In 2000, at the tail end of the last so-called boom, the median American family claimed annual earnings of about $61,000, according to federal data. By late 2007, as the Great Recession began, that same median family had seen its earnings dip to $60,500. Never before in the half-century during which the government has tracked such figures had the data offered up such clear evidence of declining fortunes: An expansion had run its course with the typical American family rolling backward. Add this up: Seven years of times so lean that lowered incomes became the American norm, followed by a year and a half of terrifying decline — with millions of foreclosures and trillions of dollars in lost wealth — followed by a similar interim of tepid economic growth leaving the unemployment rate above 9 percent. That’s a Lost Decade right there. Set aside the fluctuations that have made the economy manic in recent time — a technology bubble propelled by Wall Street financiers and Silicon Valley venture capitalists; the real estate bubble, pumped up by banks that turned mortgages into casino chips — and focus instead on what matters most to ordinary people: What do we bring home from work? In that context, “Lost Decade” seems like a mild description of the American experience. The data offers up the Lost Three Decades. At the end of 2010, the average weekly earnings for American rank-and-file workers sat at roughly the same level as at the end of 1979 in inflation-adjusted terms. (Have a look at the raw Labor Department data here .) A lot of caveats go into absorbing that number. Large numbers of women and immigrants entered the labor force in those years, which has tended to pull down average wages. But a central truth cannot be dismissed: More than a quarter-century has gone past — a sweep of history that has seen the personal computing revolution, two wars in the Persian Gulf, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the integration of China into the global economy — and yet the average American worker has gotten nowhere. This while the costs of health care, education and housing have skyrocketed. You won’t encounter any of this sort of analysis in Goldman’s delightful report, which is aimed not at people who work for a living, but people who are inclined to conflate the stock market and the real economy. And the stock market, according to Goldman, is poised for a boffo 2011. Who can argue with that? Savvy U.S. corporations are making enormous sums of money by boosting their sales abroad and keeping a lid on their costs — which is to say, by not hiring people. Companies like General Electric, whose chief executive Jeffrey Immelt was just named to head a task force that is supposed to encourage job growth, have netted record profits by selling product overseas and laying off workers at home. This formula pretty much describes how the economy has grown robustly for most of the last three decades, while opportunities for working people have withered. Its perpetuation fairly ensures no need to worry about a Lost Decade if you are an executive at a multinational corporation, a shareholder seeking hefty dividends, or a Wall Street chieftain counting on a bonus. But the words at the top of Goldman’s report — “Stay the Course” — amount to a threat for the rest of the nation. The course is untenable. For most people, it leads to credit card debt, ulcer medication and, perhaps, bankruptcy. Japan imploded and then stagnated at the messy end of the real-estate speculation that filled out the 1980s by dithering about the needed fix. Tokyo tried modest stimulus spending packages, then austerity, then public works spending and then export-led growth — always too late, always inadequately and usually amid political discord over how to proceed. Here in the United States, the most striking similarity with Japan’s years of decline is the way in which political dysfunction continues to be a powerful barrier to needed action, rendering impossible the muscular investments required to pull us out of the ditch — investments in renewable energy, education and infrastructure. Goldman’s dismissal of Lost Decade fears is brazenly self-serving. When people are afraid, they tend not to hand their money to Wall Street gamblers to manage. Worse, its words heap fresh disinformation and a false dose of reassurance into a conversation that ought to be centered on an honest reckoning about where we are and how to claw our way back. We are very much lost, and have been for decades. And we will remain so for as long as influential people pay attention to the cynical assurances of Goldman, which has mastered the art of digging us deeper into a hole, all the while selling us the shovels.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Afghanistan’s "Too Big to Fail" Bank Is Failing — Guess Our System Doesn’t Work There, Either

February 2, 2011

The collapse of Afghanistan’s largest bank will seem familiar to Americans, and so will the upcoming reports of its bailout. We’ve heard the story before: Unheeded warnings. Lax (or nonexistent) law enforcement. An American auditor who said nothing as the books imploded. Sloppy, reckless, and greedy lending. Politicians in bed with banks. And a corporate crime wave led by bankers who can break the law with impunity, knowing they won’t be punished even if they’re caught. The Kabul Bank story is a sad inversion of nation-building. It might have provided some moments of black humor for the recession-ravaged middle class, if only Americans and Afghans weren’t paying for it with their lives. We promised to teach the Afghans everything we know about running a modern economy. Apparently we did. Exporting hypocrisy The financial collapse of 2008 discredited an economic philosophy which had dominated both political parties for decades. That philosophy created a toxic cocktail of deregulation, ineffective oversight, concentrated wealth, and incentives to cheat. The end result cost the economy trillions in lost wealth, ongoing hardship for tens of millions of people, and a bailout whose true cost is still being hidden from the public. And what did we learn from all of that? Not very much, judging by the evidence. The list of institutions advising the Afghans includes the US Treasury Department and the Department of Justice — both of whom have, shall we say, underperformed when it comes to regulating banks and prosecuting financial crimes. And the consulting group that was awarded nearly $100 million to help the Afghans develop sound financial practices went bankrupt in the middle of its assignment. That’s right — bankrupt. But the source of our failure in Afghanistan isn’t in the government’s choice of advisors or its failure to manage its developmental efforts properly, as harmful as those things have been. The real problems in Afghanistan are philosophical, not managerial, and they’re the same ones that have plagued us at home: a continued belief in failed economic theories; indifference or hostility toward regulation and regulatory agencies; a too-cozy relationship between banks and politicians; and, worst of all, the willingness to tolerate (and therefore condone) a list of bank crimes that includes fraud, forgery, and laundering drug money. “Thin Tightrope” Cables released by WikiLeaks reveal that U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry considered it necessary to walk a ” thin tightrope ” when working with corrupt officials. The cable indicated that Eikenberry collaborated with an “allegedly corrupt official because he could serve as a “stabilizing… force” (militarily, in this case.) This official’s “illicit (drug) trafficking” was not to be tolerated in the interests of security. That philosophy extended to banking, where the now-failing Kabul Bank and other banks were widely understood to be helping Afghans get illicit drug money out of the country. Kabul Bank is no different from Wells Fargo, either in its willingness to handle drug money or its apparent impunity from the law. As Bloomberg News originally reported, Wells Fargo’s internal screening unit repeatedly turned a blind eye to money laundering on behalf of mass-murdering Mexican drug cartels. Regarding these drug laundering charges, Bloomberg reported that “no big U.S. bank — Wells Fargo included — has ever been indicted. Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again.” As Bloomberg explains, “Large banks are protected from indictments by a variant of the too-big-to-fail theory.” In other words, once a bank is big enough to pose a threat to the economy it receives effective immunity for past and future criminal behavior — a license to commit crime. Yet “too big to fail” provisions were removed from last year’s US financial reform law by lawmakers on Capitol Hill whose own favorite investments included Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase. And Afghanistan’s largest bank, a corrupt collaboration between its president and the bank’s principal owners, grew large enough to become a “systemic risk” to the nation’s economy… as our own government stood and watched. Meanwhile, here at home, corporate lawbreakers like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase are apparently still considered a “stabilizing force.” Too big to fail As the New York Times reported this week: Fraud and mismanagement at Afghanistan’s largest bank have resulted in potential losses of as much as $900 million — three times previous estimates — heightening concerns that the bank could collapse and trigger a broad financial panic in Afghanistan, according to American, European and Afghan officials. The extent of these losses make it clear that keeping the bank afloat — something the government has said it is determined to do — would require large infusions of cash from an already strained budget. The crisis was a long time coming. As the Times reported last September , Afghan President Hamid Kharzai has family ties and a personal financial interest in the bank, and agreed to bring the brother of one of the bank’s principals into the government as his Vice Presidential running mate. (But then, American Administrations from both parties (including the current one) have hired a string of senior bank officials and watched others leave government to join big banks — not as egregious, perhaps, but a clear conflict of interest.) If an institution is allowed to become “too big to fail,” it’s rarely an accident. The corruption has already taken place somewhere along the line. Austerity and Deregulation We’re told that Deloitte, the auditor in place at Kabul Bank, was not specifically tasked with reviewing its accounts. Deloitte apparently acquired the contract when it purchased BearingPoint, the consulting firm that went bankrupt. But unless there are more contracts being awarded than have been widely reported, the original BearingPoint contract (worth a reported $98 million) was designed to help banks “improve economic governance.” There were reports as far back as 2005 that some of the consultants on the project were “subpar” and that US contractors were receiving widespread criticism locally. BearingPoint has promoted a privatization-oriented approach during its richly (and, let’s not forget, publicly ) funded tenure in Afghanistan, as it has in other countries. The firm and its successor unit within Deloitte have done some good work, but remain part of a well-paid consultant nexus that emphasizes the same set of shared values that undermined the US economy. In other words, BearingPoint and like-minded vendors have been faithful in the execution of an austerity-minded philosophy — a philosophy that can sometimes become anti-government in many ways, and whose philosophy of “austerity” rarely extends to its own practitioners. The Afghan Research and Evaluation unit, a group set up by the international aid community in Afghanistan, assessed Afghan aid as follows: “Consistent with the current consensus on development held by the donor community and international financial institutions (IFIs), the privatisation process has gained increased momentum in Afghanistan … Fifty four fully state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have been slated for privatisation as going concerns or through liquidation by the end of 2009.” In BearingPoint’s case, their sympathy for this downsizing-government approach isn’t surprising. Alice Rivlin, the economist best-known for relentlessly advocated Social Security cuts, was a member of the Board and the company’s leading economic figure — before it went bankrupt. They say they weren’t doing the bank’s books. But if they were there to “improve the economic governance” of Kabul Bank, an institution whose misdeeds were well-known and whose implosion could topple the economy, then it’s certainly fair to say that their work has been “subpar.” Toxic Assets A report commissioned by the International Monetary Fund got the problems right. “As of March 2008,” the report noted, “the two largest domestic private banks accounted for almost 50 percent of total banking system assets. The combined loans of these two banks were 70 percent of total commercial bank lending.” The mayor of Kabul was indicted by the Afghan government on corruption charges, but U.S. officials wound his explanation credible: He was arrested by corrupt officials after he exposed their own misdeeds. Specifically, he told officials that he found files for more than 30,000 applicants who paid for “nonexistent plots of land in Kabul.” These toxic assets were part of a larger get-rich-quick schemes for officials who apparently found his investigations inconvenient. The IMF report also included this observation: “Most banks did not attach particular importance to analysis of borrowers’ balance sheets, cash flow, or business plans.” That kind of lax underwriting will be familiar to observers of American lending practices. The report also noted, somewhat laconically, that “banks that lend extensively domestically engage in extra-judicial, non-traditional contract enforcement. ” Extra-judicial? As in illegal? It sounds like we’ve exported foreclosure fraud, too. Do as we say, not as we do The procurement process for USAID projects in Afghanistan seems to be a mess. Sen. McCaskill was surprised to learn that major contractors there were not being asked to file the usual tracking reports . The Obama Administration was criticized for awarding a major contract to a Democratic party donor , and for using the “no-bid” process it has criticized in the election campaign to do it. After Kabul Bank’s impending failure was reported, the US government insisted that the Times update its story to include a quote from a Treasury Department spokesperson saying that “no American taxpayer funds will be used to prop up Kabul Bank.” But that doesn’t have any more credibility than Treasury Department claims that bank bailouts in this country have been fully repaid — a claim that doesn’t count aid funneled through the Federal Reserve, the cash value of low- and zero-interest bank loans, and other taxpayer-funded measures. Ninety percent of Afghanistan’s national budget was financed by foreign countries last year, with the US assuming a significant chunk of the cost. When the Afghans conduct their first bank bailout, under United States supervision, the funds will undoubtedly come from the Afghan treasury. And then funds from ours will help make up the shortfall elsewhere. Yes, corruption among politicians and other officials is a much greater problem there. They’re a drug-based economy whose principal export is poppies. Their country is divided, impoverished, and largely illiterate. But economic behavior is universal. Their bankers are subject to the same “moral hazard” as bankers everywhere: When “too big to fail” banks can gamble with absolute certainty that they’ll be rescued, that’s exactly what they’ll do. When bankers know they can commit crimes go unpunished, they’ll commit crimes. And they won’t stop until people start going to jail — in both countries. “You complete me …” A jargon-laden report from the Congressional Research Service addressed what it called “ROL,” an acronym that stands for the “rule of law,” and concluded: “Helping Afghanistan build its justice sector … suffers from the same difficulties that have complicated all efforts to expand and reform governance in that country: lack of trained human capital; traditional affiliation patterns that undermine the professionalism, neutrality, and impartiality of official institutions; and complications from the broader lack of security and stability in Afghanistan.” In other words, they’re saying that Afghans are too tribal and primitive to do things the American way. But that’s not true. Yes, education and training is needed. But their lack of law enforcement, especially in the financial sector, directly reflects the level of emphasis we’ve placed on it ourselves — in their country and here at home. We’ve lavishly funded privatization efforts and the unrestrained growth of private and morally corrupt banks, while at the same time devaluing the role of regulation and law enforcement. The problem with the Afghans isn’t that they’re not like us. The problem is that we’re too much alike. People everywhere are, pretty much, especially where money’s concerned. So until we change the way we govern, the results are likely to be the same wherever we go. Crimes will still be committed, banks will still fail, and we’ll all keep paying the price for a moral, legal, and economic blindness that keeps leading us off the same cliff over and over again. Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Wall Street Pay Jumps 5.7 Percent, Breaking Record

February 2, 2011

Wall Street pay is rising, while income for normal Americans has stagnated. Even as the real economy limped, financial firms paid employees a record sum last year, the Wall Street Journal reports. In 2009, the last full year data are available, average wages for Americans fell 1.5 percent from the previous year, according to the National Average Wage Index. Median household income in 2009 was “not statistically different” from 2008, according to the Census Bureau . But total pay at Wall Street firms rose 5.7 percent in 2010, as the 25 companies that have already reported results shelled out a record $135 billion. Even as regulators pressured firms to alter compensation, prominent executives got big pay bumps, seeming to suggest that the former Wall Street culture has emerged virtually unscathed from the recession. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, executives got bonuses based on their companies’ short-term performance, a phenomenon that experts say encouraged excessively risky behavior. When lawmakers drafted regulations for the financial sector, executive compensation became a crucial subject for reform. The stimulus act, passed in early 2009, contained rules limiting pay. But those rules have not worked, according to a December report from the Council of Institutional Investors. While some firms did decrease bonuses, they also raised base salaries to compensate. Even the new forms of pay — such as restricted stock, designed to align executives’ interests with those of shareholders — don’t effectively curb dangerous risk, the report found. Indeed, combined pay at the financial firms surveyed by the WSJ hit an all-time high last year. Despite concerns in recent months that firms were suffering from a decline in trading volume, revenue rose 1 percent to $417 billion, another all-time record. Meanwhile, the percentage of revenue that went into employees’ pockets climbed as well, from 31.1 percent in 2009 to 32.5 percent last year. The taxpayer bailout that firms received during the crisis has helped amplify Wall Street’s bottom lines . With hundreds of billions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other initiatives, the five biggest investment banks — Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley — saw their revenues soar, Bloomberg News reported last year. As TARP has wound down, the Federal Reserve has launched a $600 billion asset-purchase program, intended to augment the flow of cash through the economy, which has also been a direct and indirect boon for the banks. As it buys U.S. government debt, the Fed announces its purchases ahead of time, giving certain banks an opportunity to profit on the trades.

Read the full article →

Wall Street fluctuate by the end of today’s session

February 2, 2011

Wall Street fluctuate by the end of today’s session

Read the full article →

Pamela Rosenau: Winter of Content?

February 2, 2011

Although we are in the middle of winter, I am already seeing signs of the first thaw… in equity markets that is. I believe that we are headed for a melt-up in the US stock market through 2011. The ‘Winter of Discontent’ in England in 1978-79 was characterized by widespread strikes over the government’s attempt to curb inflation via pay freezes. Today the US is experiencing the opposite inflation scenario. Fed Chairman Bernanke is charging full steam ahead with quantitative easing policies because of the belief that inflation is “below optimal levels.” Could this lead to the ‘Winter of Content’ for US equity investors? A loose monetary policy environment is always a good backdrop for a rally in equities. But even though we have already seen major moves up, I think there is more to come. The market has been very fickle over the last year, which has led to under-performance by professional managers across the board. About 75% of managers underperformed their benchmarks in 2010, with close to 90% of core managers under-performing. Even some of the top dogs have been struggling, with the Wall Street Journal pointing out that there are more than a dozen mutual funds that have been in the top 20% of their Morningstar category over the last 5-10 years that were in the bottom 10% of peers for 2010. This means that a lot of people are going to be chasing alpha this year. Considering how under-invested the typical retail or high net worth individual is, I think there is the potential for the market to extend 2010′s rally in 2011. In 1999 and 2000, investors poured over $400bn into domestic equity mutual funds. In contrast, in 2009 and 2010, we saw over $100bn of domestic equity outflows. How exactly does that translate into an overbought market today? Data from Swiss private banks has confirmed that investors are still sitting on record high cash levels. Even if the typical investor is showing up late to the equity party, isn’t it likely that they are going to bring enough booze (ie investable cash) to keep things going for another while? There are some attractive fundamentals in the US to support a continued move higher. The S&P is trading at 15x earnings vs a historic average multiple of around 16.4x. People say that a low growth environment is not conducive to multiple expansion. However, GDP growth and stock returns are typically not correlated. Equity performance depends more on earnings growth, which is a function of margins and the cost of/return on capital. In the current low inflation/high unemployment environment employees have lost their negotiating power, so corporates will benefit from stable labor costs. (Incidentally, this is not the case in emerging markets where the combination of rising inflation and labor shortages means costs are likely to be on the rise, making investing in those markets less attractive than investing domestically). One sector that looks poised to generate earnings upside and impressive market returns is energy. While people seem to be underweight domestic equities in general, this is even more apparent in energy. The short interest (number of people who are betting on prices going down) is at a one-year-high. The sector currently comprises about 12% of the total S&P market cap, whereas it has reached almost 30% at its peak. At the same time, fundamentals look positive. We are seeing signs of increasing demand for energy, evidenced by the oil market recently moving into “backwardation” — where current oil contracts are priced higher than future ones. This means that current demand is outstripping current supply to such an extent that people are willing to pay a premium to secure the oil now. Take note of this structure, because I think it could translate into the equity market as a whole. As money comes off the sidelines, people are going to start paying up for exposure. Rosenau/Paul is a team of investment professionals registered with HighTower Securities, LLC, member FINRA, MSRB and SIPC & HighTower Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser with the SEC. All securities are offered through HighTower Securities, LLC and advisory services are offered through HighTower Advisors, LLC. This document was created for informational purposes only; the opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of HighTower Advisors, LLC or any of its affiliates. In preparing these materials, we have relied upon and assumed without independent verifications, the accuracy and completeness of all information available from public and internal sources. HighTower shall not in any way be liable for claims and make no expressed or implied representations or warranties as to their accuracy or completeness or for statements or errors contained in or omissions from them. This is not an offer to buy or sell securities. No investment process is free of risk and there is no guarantee that the investment process described herein will be profitable. Investors may lose all of their investments. Past performance is not indicative of current or future performance and is not a guarantee. Carefully consider investment objectives, risk factors and charges and expenses before investing.

Read the full article →

Julian Block: Bad Debt Deductions for Worthless Loans to Spouses

February 1, 2011

These being the times they are, you may be tapped for a loan by a relative or friend who is unable to come up with the down payment for a home or who wants to start a business or keep it afloat. And what if the loan goes sour, as so often happens? The tax rules on deductions for bad debts can be more bad news for you. So before staking someone, it’s a good idea to know how the Internal Revenue Service looks on worthless loans. The IRS says you can deduct a worthless loan if there is no likelihood of recovery in the future. But you can’t take a deduction for an outright gift. That’s why the agency looks closely at bad debt deductions where the lender and borrower are related and why it may insist on proof that the “loan” wasn’t really a gift. Unpaid Loans and Marriage. The law presumes that loans from one spouse to another don’t create valid debts. To get around that snag, Carolyn Marlett claimed that her marriage to husband Charles was a “relationship maintained for financial convenience only.” Hence, her co-signing of a joint income tax refund was a loan to Charles, as were her other “advances” to him. However, Carolyn couldn’t convince the United States Tax Court that the advances were valid debts. In a 1976 decision, the court noted that she never asked Charles to sign notes or bothered to set an interest rate or repayment schedule. But the Tax Court isn’t completely inflexible on this issue. It ruled that June M. Rogers could deduct loans made to her husband, who declared bankruptcy after their divorce. The loans weren’t gifts; he used the money in an unsuccessful business venture and signed promissory notes for repayment. Can an Unreturned Engagement Ring be a Deductible Bad Debt? The Tax Court ruled in favor of the government in 1982 in a case involving Jack Wolfson. Jack was a Dallas salesman whose territory included Houston, where he met and ultimately became engaged to Yvonne Gibbs. To seal their engagement, he gave her a diamond ring. But just a week later, she broke things off and sold the ring (a decision triggered by Jack’s refusal to honor his promise to reimburse her for the cost of housing her poodle in a kennel during her visits with him in Dallas). Jack sued Yvonne for the ring’s cost and won a default judgment of $1,000, which he made no attempt to collect. Instead, the spurned lover took a bad debt deduction for $1,000. The IRS invoked two arguments to justify its disallowance of the deduction. First, Jack didn’t offer any proof he tried to collect. Therefore, the debt wasn’t worthless at the end of the year in issue, a requisite for the write-off of a bad debt. Second, simply giving an engagement ring doesn’t create a debt. Approving a bad debt deduction for that act alone “would, in essence, open the doors of litigation to allow every rejected lover to come into the Tax Court and ask it to allow him a deduction” for an unreturned ring. The IRS urged the court not to assume “part of the cost of the romance” of Jack with Yvonne. The judge deemed it unnecessary to rule on the second argument, as he agreed with the first one. Jack offered no evidence of Yvonne’s insolvency or other inability to pay during the year in question. Hence, he failed to prove the debt’s worthlessness during that year. **** Julian Block is an attorney and author based in Larchmont, N.Y. He has been cited as “a leading tax professional” (New York Times), “an accomplished writer on taxes” (Wall Street Journal) and “an authority on tax planning” (Financial Planning Magazine). His latest books are: “Julian Block’s Tax Tips for Marriage and Divorce: Savvy Ways for Couples to Trim Their Taxes;” “Julian Block’s Home Seller’s Guide to Tax Savings: A Tax Guide for Buyers, Sellers, Foreclosures, Short Sales, and More;” “Julian Block’s Easy Tax Guide for Writers, Photographers, and Other freelancers; ” and “Julian Block’s Tax Deductible Travel and Moving Expenses: How to Take Advantage of Every Tax Break the Law Allows.” His Web site is julianblocktaxexpert.com.

Read the full article →

Wall Street extend gains and closed in green…

February 1, 2011

Wall Street extend gains and closed in green…

Read the full article →