taxpayer

Ireland’s Banks Will Need $43 Billion in Capital After `Appalling’ Lending

March 31, 2010

By Dara Doyle and Colm Heatley March 31 (Bloomberg) — Ireland’s banks need $43 billion in new capital after “appalling” lending decisions left the country’s financial system on the brink of collapse. The fund-raising requirement was announced after the National Asset Management Agency said it will apply an average discount of 47 percent on the first block of loans it is buying from lenders as part of a plan to revive the financial system. The central bank set new capital buffers for Allied Irish Banks Plc and Bank of Ireland Plc and gave them 30 days to say how they will raise the funds. “Our worst fears have been surpassed,” Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said in the parliament in Dublin yesterday. “Irish banking made appalling lending decisions that will cost the taxpayer dearly for years to come.” Dublin-based Allied Irish needs to raise 7.4 billion euros to meet the capital targets, while cross-town rival Bank of Ireland will need 2.66 billion euros. Anglo Irish Bank Corp. , nationalized last year, may need as much 18.3 billion euros. Customer-owned lenders Irish Nationwide and EBS will need 2.6 billion euros and 875 million euros, respectively. ‘Truly Shocking’ The asset agency aims to cleanse banks of toxic loans, the legacy of plunging real-estate prices and the country’s deepest recession. In all, it will buy loans with a book value of 80 billion euros ($107 billion), about half the size of the economy. Lenihan said the information from NAMA on the banks was “truly shocking.” “The regulator is taking the bank system by the scruff of the neck,” said James Forbes , senior equity strategist at Irish Life Investment Managers in Dublin. “Allied Irish has a lot of work to do to avoid majority state ownership, Bank of Ireland less so.” Allied Irish rose 10 percent to 1.37 euros as of 9:06 a.m. in Dublin. Bank of Ireland surged 26 percent to 1.62 euros. Credit-default swaps insuring both banks’ debts declined. Allied Irish will sell its stakes in banks in the U.S. and Poland and said late yesterday this will meet a “substantial part” of its capital needs. It also plans a share sale. Bank of Ireland said today it’s working to fill the capital deficit after posting a net loss of 1.46 billion euros in the nine months through December 2009. The lender expects to be able to raise most of the new capital privately, Chief Executive Officer Richie Boucher said. Capital Target Lenders must have an 8 percent core Tier 1 capital ratio, a key measure of financial strength, by the end of the year, according to the regulator. The equity core Tier 1 capital must increase to 7 percent. AIB’s equity core tier 1 ratio stood at 5 percent at the end of 2009 and Bank of Ireland’s at 5.3 percent. Those ratios exclude a government investment of 3.5 billion euros in each bank, made at the start of 2009. “The banks are undergoing major surgery via NAMA,” financial regulator Matthew Elderfield said at a press conference in Dublin. “They need a transfusion now to speed their recovery and that of the economy.” Credit-default swaps insuring Allied Irish Bank’s debt against default fell 6.5 basis points to 195.5, according to CMA DataVision prices at 8:45 a.m. Contracts protecting Bank of Ireland’s debt fell 7 basis points to 191 and swaps linked to Anglo Irish Bank’s bonds were down 3.5 basis points at 347.5. Credit-default swaps pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent should a company fail to adhere to its debt agreements. A decline signals improving perceptions of credit quality. State Aid If Allied Irish can’t raise enough funds privately, the state will step in with aid, Lenihan said. It is “probable” the government will then end up with a majority stake, he said. The banks “are in a better position today, but we also have to be cautious about thinking we are done and dusted here,” Forbes said. Ireland may not be able to afford to pump more money into the banks. The budget deficit widened to 11.7 percent of gross domestic product last year, almost four times the European Union limit, and the government spent the past year trying to convince investors the state is in control of its finances. The premium investors charge to hold Irish 10-year debt over the German equivalent was at 139 basis points today compared with 284 basis points in March 2009, a 16-year high. Ireland’s debt agency said it doesn’t envisage additional borrowing this year related to the bank recapitalization. It is sticking to its 2010 bond issuance forecast of about 20 billion euros, head of funding Oliver Whelan said in an interview. “The bank losses, awful as they are, represent a one-off hit. It’s water under the bridge,” said Ciaran O’Hagan , a Paris-based fixed-income strategist at Societe Generale SA. “What’s of more concern for investors in government bonds is the budget deficit. Slashing the chronic overspending and raising taxation by the Irish state is vital.” To contact the reporters on this story: Dara Doyle in Dublin at ddoyle1@bloomberg.net ; Colm Heatley in Belfast at cheatley@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Paymaster Feinberg Reduces Cash Pay by One-Third at Five U.S. Companies

March 24, 2010

By Robert Schmidt and Ian Katz March 24 (Bloomberg) — American International Group Inc. and four other companies overseen by Obama administration paymaster Kenneth Feinberg were told to cut cash compensation to top executives by 33 percent from last year. Total pay in 2010, including cash, will fall by about 15 percent for 119 executives at AIG, General Motors Co., GMAC Inc. , Chrysler Group LLC and Chrysler Financial Corp. , Feinberg said at a press briefing in Washington yesterday. Still, his rulings showed 69 of them will get $1 million or more, including long-term restricted stock payable only in future years. “It’s a different economy than it was a year ago, and companies have started feeling like there’s more wiggle room today,” said David Wise , a senior consultant at Hay Group, a Philadelphia-based management consulting firm. “But these pay cuts are going to make every board member in America feel less secure about their pay decisions.” Five of the 119 will receive cash salaries of $1 million or more, with AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche getting the most at $3 million. Benmosche’s total pay, including long- term stock awards, is $10.5 million. No one at Chrysler or GMAC will get a salary of more than $500,000. “We’re trying to continue to lower overall total compensation” for the top executives, Feinberg said. He singled out Benmosche for “ specific mention and praise” for his cooperation. Bank Repayments Feinberg, 64, was appointed last June to monitor pay of executives at seven bailed-out companies, including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., which repaid taxpayer funds and escaped Feinberg’s supervision in December. Of that group, 39 left the seven companies before Feinberg ordered cuts averaging 50 percent in October, and another 18 departed since then. About 85 percent of executives whose pay was evaluated last year are still with their companies, Feinberg said. The statistics “undercut the argument that I have heard all along that if you don’t pay more and give more salaries and higher salaries, people will leave,” Feinberg said. “They are not leaving, and I am comforted by that fact.” Feinberg said he will also review compensation at 419 companies given rescue funds, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , for a four-month period of 2008 and 2009. Firms participating in the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program are being sent 25- to 30-page questionnaires seeking pay data for that period and must respond within 30 days. The seven companies initially under Feinberg’s supervision will receive the most scrutiny, he said. Bailout Period The period spans from October 2008, when bailout funds were first awarded, to February 2009, when President Barack Obama signed economic stimulus legislation that included curbs on executive pay at companies that got U.S. funds. The law requires a review of whether payments at the firms are in “the public interest.” Feinberg, who doesn’t have legal authority to recoup compensation at the firms in the broader review, said he may use the “bully pulpit” of his position to get executives to return money. He also said he “probably” will identify by name executives who got compensation he deems excessive. In making decisions, Feinberg said he would take into account whether the firms followed principles he has previously outlined, such as tying compensation to long-term performance. Repaying taxpayers will be looked on favorably, he said. “If a company has completely repaid the taxpayer with interest, that makes it much easier to conclude” that the firm’s compensation was appropriate, Feinberg said. As special master on compensation, Feinberg must also review the pay structures, though not the amounts, for the 26th to 100th highest-paid employees at the five companies. He said he plans to release his rulings on those in April. To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net ; Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Zapatero’s Campaign to Avoid Greek Deficit Fate Hobbled by Spanish Regions

March 18, 2010

By Emma Ross-Thomas March 18 (Bloomberg) — Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero ’s drive to show Spain can avoid Greece’s fate is being held hostage by the country’s regional governments. As Zapatero tries to cut the euro area’s third-highest budget deficit , regional chiefs facing elections over the next year are refusing to trim spending. The European Commission said yesterday Spain may need deeper budget cuts to meet its deficit goals, and the regions’ performance is “an additional risk.” Zapatero’s room to maneuver is limited by the 17 regions that control 37 percent of public spending. Zapatero is being hobbled by a 30-year shift in power to Catalonia, the Basque country and other territories that now control almost twice as much spending as the Madrid government. The risk is that Zapatero won’t be able to move fast enough on a deficit that climbed to 11.4 percent of gross domestic product last year. That may prompt investors to consider dumping Spanish bonds along with their Greek counterparts . “The pressure is on, but I think some regions will resist,” said Angel de la Fuente, an economist at the National Research Council’s Institute of Economic Analysis in Barcelona and the author of several books on regional economics. The Greek crisis is a “useful scare” showing what may happen to Spain if it doesn’t get its finances in order. Additional Measures Spain may need to adopt additional budget cuts to meet its goal of bringing the shortfall back within the EU’s 3 percent limit in 2013 as the government’s economic forecasts are too optimistic, the commission said yesterday in a report. With government forecasts showing the regions will account for more than half of Spain’s 7.5 percent deficit in 2011, Finance Minister Elena Salgado will try to forge a pact with local politicians this month after a push by Zapatero failed in December. Zapatero’s struggle to break the stalemate is shining a spotlight on a country whose economy is four times the size of Greece and has a jobless rate of 18.8 percent, the euro region’s highest. The extra yield investors demand to hold Spanish debt rather than German equivalents is 74 basis points. While that’s about a quarter of Greece’s spread, it’s still almost double what it was two years ago. ‘Next Greece’ “No country wants to be the next Greece,” said Olaf Penninga , a senior portfolio manager at Robeco Group in Rotterdam, which manages 140 billion euros ($192.5 billion). It has sold most of its Spanish government bonds, replacing them with Italian equivalents. The Greek crisis “has clearly put more pressure on Spain to take credible measures to reduce the deficit.” The government will have to contend with opponents such as Madrid President Esperanza Aguirre from the People’s Party, who called on March 10 for a “rebellion” against a proposal to raise sales tax to 18 percent from 16 percent. Even Zapatero’s allies are showing resistance. Angel Agudo , economy chief in the northern Cantabria territory, was quoted by newswire Efe last month as saying the deficit-cutting burden needs to be shared and he won’t “pick up other people’s bill.” Fourteen regions will probably hold elections by the end of 2011. Regional governments, which control health and education spending, are reluctant to join the deficit-cutting drive as the recession reduces the flow of funds they receive from the central government. Taxes tied to property sales, which accounted for as much as 20 percent of some regions’ revenue in the boom, have declined to half of that, Standard & Poor’s estimates. Regional Power “The key problem is that the regions have been given power over spending without the responsibility of having to go to the taxpayer to ask for money,” said Luis Garicano , an economics professor at the London School of Economics. “They don’t have the right incentives to spend in line with their revenue capabilities.” Spain’s atomized structure, which has evolved since the death of General Francisco Franco in 1975, contrasts with the more centralized powers of the Irish government. While Zapatero needs to curry favor with regional rulers to make sure cuts are made, his counterpart in Ireland only needed a majority in the national parliament to pass unprecedented austerity packages. The deficit stalemate may start to weigh further on credit ratings. S&P, which cut Spain one notch to AA+ last year, says regional governments may see downgrades this year. Ratings Concern Spain may be “over-optimistic” on revenues, said Myriam Fernandez de Heredia , head of the company’s European local and regional government team. Catalonia is one of the lowest-rated Spanish regions on AA-, and the Madrid region is rated AA. Fitch Ratings, which has an AAA rating on Spain, is skeptical that regions can cut spending growth to 2.6 percent this year as budgeted, compared with an average of 9 percent in the five years through 2007. Nor can Madrid claw back the power it has ceded and assert its authority. The government’s lack of control was clear on Jan. 29 when it presented a plan to save 50 billion euros by 2013 that left the section on regional finances blank. “Everybody still remembers the initial presentation with the holes,” Penninga said. The one measure of control the government does have is that it has to sign off on regions’ debt issuance. Carlos Ocana , the deputy finance minister responsible for budgets, said on Feb. 24 that the central government would be “rigorous” this year when assessing borrowing needs. For Zapatero, the challenge will be to cajole regions into cutting spending without losing support in the national assembly, where he lacks a majority and needs the backing of parties such as Catalonia’s Republican Left, the National Galician Block or the Nationalist Basque Party. “Politically, it’s difficult because the government also needs the votes of certain parties to govern,” said Alfredo Pastor , a former deputy finance minister and a professor at IESE business school in Madrid. “Cutting expenditure is harder than it looks.” To contact the reporter on this story: Emma Ross-Thomas in Madrid at erossthomas@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Eric C. Anderson: Beijing, Washington and Currency Manipulation

March 17, 2010

Apparently not satisfied with two wars, a national debt approaching $14 trillion, and endless partisan bickering, Congress now wants to pick a fight with China. On March 15, 2010, the collective “wisdom” of our elected representatives was resplendently displayed in a letter essentially demanding the Obama administration consider a revival of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Only in this case Washington would not be targeting all foreign imports, just those from China. Not to worry, China is only our second largest trading partner…this won’t have much effect at home…in the short run. Or at least before the November elections, the 130 legislators listed as signatories hope. This congressional effort to relive the events of 1930 assumed additional speed on March 16, when five senators including Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced legislation echoing the infamous letter. The proposed bill — hereafter the Schumer-Graham Tariff Act — would compel the Treasury Department to declare China a currency manipulator. The Schumer-Graham Tariff Act would also facilitate the imposition of import duties as a means of compensating for any perceived currency manipulation. In other words…back to Smoot-Hawley. Why all this shouting from the rafters? Congress — with its extensive economics experience and obvious comprehension of all financial issues — believes China is a “currency manipulator.” More specifically, the Capitol Hill denizens believe that “by pegging the renminbi to the U.S. dollar at a fixed exchange rate, China unfairly subsidizes its exports and disadvantages foreign imports.” Do the Chinese do this? You bet. Why? The Chinese Communist Party wants to maintain an economic growth rate that exceeds 8% a year as a means of generating employment and thereby providing their population of 1.3 billion a lifestyle most Americans would reject as outright deprivation. Furthermore, some analysts estimate an immediate revaluation of the yuan would result in the loss of 5 million Chinese jobs. In either case, members of the Chinese government, like politicians in Washington, realize employment and take-home pay matter. If Beijing fails to look out for her constituents, well, a number of Chinese politicians will be looking for work. So here’s what Beijing has done. Since July 2008 — the point at which it became apparent our banking crisis was going to cause a global recession — China locked the yuan to the dollar at an exchange rate of 6.83 to 1. This move came as a bit of a shock, as apparently many Western analysts figured China would be sucked down the economic sinkhole with everyone else. The technocrats in Beijing were not so inclined. After allowing the yuan to appreciate 21% against the dollar between July 2005 and July 2008, they decided to protect their peoples’ jobs — and thus remain atop China’s political hierarchy. Washington was not as logical. In a desperate bid to save their buddies on Wall Street, our elected representatives began exploring a means of printing more money and handing out bundles of cash. This worked for Wall Street — one look at the bonuses offered at Goldman Sachs last year confirms greed is good — it did nothing for Main Street. In a concerted effort to save their own hides and maximize profits, the banks who willingly accepted taxpayer cash refused to lend this taxpayer largess back to small businesses or anyone not employed at J.P. Morgan. The ultimate result, unemployment slithered past 10%. To make matters worse, our representatives on Capitol Hill could not agree on how to spend a stimulus package…thereby causing jobless rates to lock in…just about as tightly as the yuan peg to the dollar. The Chinese government–by the way — not only managed to spend its stimulus package in a timely manner, Beijing also worked to place responsibility for maintaining growth outside the central bank by encouraging lending in the private sector. (Yes, yes…I realize no minor element of this private sector borrowing was accomplished by local governments tasked with infrastructure development. The point is, Beijing didn’t simply go out and print more yuan — aka the U.S. Treasury solution — China’s government sought to employ domestic savings.) Back to Washington. What does the wise U.S. politician do in such a situation? Blame someone else…no, blame everyone else. The problem, of course, is that pointing fingers at our own ruinous financial system will not work. After the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United no self-preserving politician is going to go after Wall Street. Nope, far easier to look outside the border and highlight the biggest, scariest target one can find. That used to be the Soviet Union…now it’s China. Now here’s the rub. The Chinese are no longer willing to abide this silliness. The opening salvo from Beijing came on March 14, 2010, when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told reporters, “We oppose mutual accusations between countries, and even using coercion to force a country to raise its exchange rate, because that’s of no help to reforming the yuan exchange rate. We don’t believe the yuan is undervalued.” I have to give Wen credit — he didn’t stop with this bit of defensive rhetoric. No, Wen chose to pitch the grenade back in Washington’s court. American politicians like to claim the Chinese are pursuing mercantilist policies, Wen declared we are protectionists. More specifically, he argued, “I can understand some countries’ desire to raise exports, but what I do not understand is depreciating one’s own currency and attempting to pressure others to appreciate, for the purpose of increasing exports. In my view, that is protectionism.” That’s right, Wen declared Washington is engaged in currency manipulation so as to encourage exports and thereby preserve American jobs. Stated more bluntly, Wen was highlighting Washington’s hypocrisy. On March 16, Beijing turned up the heat. A spokesman at the Chinese commerce ministry told reporters, “We hope that U.S. companies in China will express their demands and points of view in the U.S., in order to promote the development of global trade and jointly oppose trade protectionism.” Seems the Chinese have been watching President Obama’s public squabble with Justice Roberts over Citizens United …only Beijing appears to understand Citizens United can be used to buttress their cause. And Beijing’s thoughts on the Schumer-Graham Tariff Act? An unnamed official at the Chinese commerce ministry simply noted, “We oppose the over-emphasis on the yuan’s exchange rate.” According to this official, the yuan would remain pegged to the dollar. As he put it, “We have repeated ourselves multiple times. And we cannot be any clearer.” Alas, the Chinese are up against a wall on this issue. Even the august Paul Krugman is advocating the reinstatement of Smoot-Hawley. (My bet, Krugman does not share Ben Bernanke’s interest in studying the Great Depression.) In his March 15, 2010 New York Times column, Krugman suggest we place a 25% tariff on Chinese goods if Beijing does not back down on the yuan. Damn, even Smoot-Hawley was not that draconian…Krugman must have a secure gig…he sure seems unconcerned about potentially plunging the U.S. back into a severe recession.) So what is Beijing to do? First, ignore the noise from Capitol Hill. If we have learned anything in the last 18 months, it is that our elected representatives are incapable of coming to agreement on anything important. The proposed Schumer-Graham Tariff Act will inevitably run into opposition and grandstanding — or get buried in health care reform and overhaul of our financial regulations. Second, put pressure on U.S. corporations with operations in China. These corporate entities are sure to loose a pack of lobbyists and cash in an effort to preserve their profits by preventing a repeat of Smoot-Hawley. Third, engage the White House. President Obama has enough problems at home — he does not need to rile our largest foreign creditor. I’m not kidding on that final point. On March 16 — in the midst of all this sound and fury — Tim Geithner told reporters the Schumer-Graham Tariff Act is “just an illustration of how strongly people feel about this.” Geithner also avoided direct questions concerning plans to name China a currency manipulator. Instead the Treasury secretary pledged to “work very hard to make sure that U.S. firms will be able to compete on a level playing-field with China, in China and in the United States.” (Hint: go back and see my advice about pressuring U.S. firms with interests in China.) And what about Washington? What can Washington do to end this row. First, become conversant in the facts about China’s economic development. The yuan is slowly appreciating at home, Chinese labor prices are rising, and Chinese consumers are now starting to spend. (Beijing now rules the world’s largest automobile market.) Second, call off the dogs. The rhetoric is only going to abet Chinese intransigence on this issue. Having suffered through the century of humiliation, increasingly nationalistic Chinese citizens are not about to take orders from any foreign government — and will certainly not accept such an act from their civil servants. Finally, Washington can pursue this issue through tangible efforts to address our own financial disaster. The Chinese are likely to be much more willing to take risky moves with the yuan when Washington no longer appears on the brink of declaring bankruptcy. My parting thought, this is no time for a new Smoot-Hawley or a squabble with the Chinese. We need to get Congress back to work on substantive issues and save the off-shore finger pointing for more appropriate targets. I leave it to you to name the guilty parties.

Read the full article →

AIG Said to Query Bonus Holdouts in Push for $45 Million of Concessions

March 12, 2010

By Hugh Son March 12 (Bloomberg) — American International Group Inc. ’s effort to reach its commitment of $45 million in bonus concessions are focusing on former employees who have refused to accept reduced payouts, said people with knowledge of the talks. The insurer mailed questionnaires this month to ex-workers at the Financial Products unit asking whether they’d earned income after leaving AIG, said the people, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are private. Under the program, compensation earned by former AIG staff in 2009 from another employer would lower payouts to be delivered next week from the New York-based company, the people said. AIG is seeking to satisfy U.S. paymaster Kenneth Feinberg ’s demands that derivatives staff return the full amount they pledged to give back after a March 2009 backlash against the awards. The employees, who worked in the unit blamed for losses that pushed AIG to the brink of collapse in September 2008, agreed to about $39 million in cuts as of Jan. 29. The bailed- out insurer said the awards were necessary to retain staff critical to unwinding trades. “AIG owes the taxpayer a huge amount of money and we want to make sure that my compensation practices take into account the need for AIG to thrive,” Feinberg, the Obama administration special master on executive pay, said in a Dec. 11 interview with Bloomberg Television. More than 95 percent of about 200 current Financial Products workers agreed to bonus cuts of 10 percent, one of the people said. Most of about 60 former workers refused to make concessions and responded that they didn’t earn income after leaving AIG, the person said. ‘Remains Committed’ The former employees, who were asked to take a 20 percent reduction, are due to receive bonuses by March 15 under the retention agreement, the person said. If AIG doesn’t reach its goal, it may be prohibited from raising salaries of top-earning employees under Feinberg’s jurisdiction, Treasury has indicated to the insurer. AIG “remains committed to reaching the target and we’re confident we will,” said Mark Herr , a spokesman for the insurer, in a statement. The firm said last month that it was overhauling its incentive system to reward employees for performance. The backlash against AIG compensation peaked a year ago with President Barack Obama criticizing the awards. To contact the reporters on this story: Hugh Son in New York at hson1@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Reggie Middleton: The Uncosted Rewards of Bankers’ Bonuses

March 11, 2010

This post originally appeared on the Financial Times’ website, thebanker.com A bank employee recently asked me: “As a trader, my bonus is derived directly from my profit and loss, which is accrued over the quarter and kept in a separate account. It does not go into the firm’s bottom line and then back out to me. Also, like most traders, I accrue 2% of my gains in a loss provision account in case I have a major write-down in the year. My bonus is 10% of my profit for the year. If I make $50m for the year my bonus is $5m. What does my bonus have to do with the mortgage-backed securities [MBS] trader who is sitting on losses? Did I or did I not show a profit of $40m to the firm’s bottom line?” Main Street is absolutely flabbergasted that bankers do not understand the core issues of this bonus question. Allow me to clearly outline the problem and propose a solution. Assuming this trader works for a prominent US bank that received a bailout, he is not entitled to a $5m bonus if he made $50m for the year. Why not? Because he generated that 10% return from taxpayer capital, not firm capital. For example, Goldman Sachs would have had the drawdown from purgatory had it not been rescued from a $30bn credit default swap deal with AIG. Let’s assume AIG would have negotiated a 40% payout to Goldman Sachs, which is realistic given that litigation with an insolvent company that had many more contingent and direct claims would probably have resulted in a lower net receipt to Goldman. This alone would have resulted in a hole of about $7.8bn for the bank. Taxpayer assistance Combined with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation bond guarantees, Public-Private Investment Programme for legacy assets and other alphabet programmes, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars in MBS purchases that have put an artificial bid under toxic assets that abound on big bank balance sheets, it is clear to see that banks were undercapitalised and benefited greatly from taxpayer assistance. Without that assistance, the trader would not have had $50m to trade and may not have had an employer at all. It really is that simple and there is no need to debate whether he deserves 10%. The real issue is 10% of what? He is relying on a 10% bookmakers’ fee for betting with taxpayer contingent capital – not pure bank capital, and that is where the great misunderstanding lies. Even if one could justify getting paid from taxpayer capital in lieu of firm capital, the taxpayer capital should (as a product of prudent business practice) have been pegged to an appropriate ‘cost’, whose hurdle rate the trader would need to overcome. In other words, management should say: “This $50m costs us 14% in coupons on government-owned preference shares, thus you will not have positive return on investment until you break that 14% mark.” If the trader failed to breach the 14% hurdle rate, he would not have received a bonus at all. Simplifying risk and return Now, I am sure many are quipping: “Well, how is a bank supposed to incentivise a trader if a negative return does not fund a bonus?” But think about it for just a moment, and you will see the implications. If the risk-adjusted cost of capital causes a business to become unprofitable – either for the employee or the firm – then neither the employee nor the firm should be in that particular line of business. The plan is ingenious in its simplicity and creates a self-regulating mechanism that prevents risks from being decoupled from rewards. This also applies to exotic derivatives transactions where in-built leverage allows for little or no upfront capital. You reserve properly for risks (counterparty, credit and market) and charge the cost of capital on the reserves. This plan works for bankers too. Mergers and acquisition bankers use minimal firm capital, thus have relatively minimal economic hurdles to overcome. Hence, the banker would likely get a higher payout than the trader because he risked less capital, but he would still have to be paid via staggered or cliff vesting (depending on the nature of the deal) with restricted stock. In this scenario, bankers would not put together deals in a fashion that runs counter to the interests of the firm’s stakeholders (at least not on purpose or through wilful negligence). Now bankers and traders become true economic partners in the firm, sharing both the reward and the risk of doing the deal – just like in the real world. Reggie Middleton is an independent investor and financial analyst with experience ranging from insurance-linked securities structuring to real estate investment. See boombustblog.com.

Read the full article →

Garrett Johnson: The Biggest Financial Bailout of Them All

March 6, 2010

Let me take you back to Christmas Eve, 2009. It was a time to wrap gifts for loved-ones. That’s how the Obama Administration felt about the financial industry when it lifted all caps in emergency bailout money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That means the taxpayer was on the hook for all losses at these two mortgage giants no matter how large the losses. The move caused a slight stir , but never got the attention of the American public because the announcement was timed to coincide with the peak season of distraction. And so it was forgotten … but not by Fannie and Freddie. On eight maids a milking day, also known as New Year’s Day, Fannie Mae took advantage of this generosity. “Effective Jan. 1, 2010, Fannie Mae brought an additional $2.4 trillion of its guaranty book of business on to the balance sheet under SFAS 166/167. Therefore, Fannie Mae expects to reflect approximately 18 million loans on its books compared with approximately two million loans as of Dec. 31, 2009 . Management estimates that the cumulative effect of adopting FAS 166/167 will boost its net worth by $2 billion to $4 billion in its first-quarter 2010 results.” Stop! Hold the phone. What this statement indicates is that Fannie Mae, the largest mortgage company in the entire world, was holding eight times the amount of mortgages off-book than it had on-book. Thus, despite the fact that it is losing tens of billions of dollars every quarter, and has borrowed $76.2 billion so far, it was actually hiding the vast majority of its worst performing mortgages off-book. The only reason you move assets off-book is if they are illiquid. And that’s not even taking into account Freddie Mac, which has borrowed another $50 Billion from the taxpayers so far. How bad are those assets? It’s hard to say for certain, but after moving $2.4 Trillion dollars worth of assets, the net worth of Fannie Mae only improved by $2 Billion, or 0.083% of the assets. Just how much is the taxpayer is on the hook for? Well, the former caps were limited to $200 Billion a piece, which the Treasury decided just wasn’t enough. So if the losses are north of $400 Billion then we are entering the range of TARP bailout, but with almost none of the press coverage. Or to put it another way : “The taxpayer bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will almost certainly be the most expensive of the financial crisis…” There has been at least one attempt at estimating the losses. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Fannie and Freddie added $291 billion to the federal deficit in 2009 and will cost an additional $389 billion to run over the next ten years. However, Fannie and Freddie are currently considered “off budget” meaning the actual cost to run these agencies is not considered by the Office of Management and Budget.” This article contains two nuggets of information. For of all, we are looking at around $600 Billion in taxpayer bailout, assuming the market doesn’t take another sharp downturn. That’s nothing to sneeze at, and it certainly deserves a lot more press coverage than it has gotten. The second nugget is that all these losses are consider off-budget. So what we are talking about is moving hundreds of billions of dollars of bad assets from off-budget Fannie Mae to off-budget Treasury Department. This accounting gimmick has disturbing parallels to another contemporary crisis. “It is the same sort of financial shell game that has brought governments like Greece to a crisis point. Hiding your debts just leads to a bigger day of financial reckoning down the road,” said Representative Spencer Bachus. Bachus may be a Republican who supported fighting two wars off-budget, but in this case he is 100% correct. Hiding debts off-budget is exactly what broke the Greek government. The Republicans are pushing to have the money put on-budget which would, of course, immediately blow out the federal borrowing limits. After weeks of pressing by the Republicans, the Obama Administration has finally agreed to consider it . A carefully designed disaster The collapse of Fannie and Freddie didn’t start recently, and didn’t happen by accident. It was a calculated decision by the Bush Administration to try to extend and pretend the housing crisis into the next administration. It all started in March 2008 : “By reducing the extra cushion of capital the two companies have been required to hold since 2004, the regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, is enabling the companies to invest $200 billion more in home loans. In essence, the companies are being allowed to take billions of dollars that had been used as a reserve against possible further losses and invest that money now in the housing market. But critics said that if the housing market continued to decline, the move could put the two companies on a less sure footing and ultimately require a huge taxpayer bailout. ‘I think it’s very dangerous and it’s a sign that people are very frightened,’ said Thomas H. Stanton, an expert on the two companies who teaches a course on credit risk at Johns Hopkins University. ‘At a time in which finance companies are holding questionable assets and facing losses, regulators typically require more capital, not less.’” On top of that, the size of the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to buy was increased , from $417,000 to $729,750. This change happened in the face of collapsing asset prices. Homes worth nearly 3/4 of a million dollars are not part of the original reasons why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created, nor should they be. People that can afford homes of that price do not need public subsidies, nor should they get it. “Now, thanks to Congress, junk bond investors will be able to pawn off their bad debt to Fannie and Freddie, instead of suing the big investment houses for ripping them off. This shift will certainly doom Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so don’t be surprised if we, the taxpayers, have to bail out poor Fannie and Freddie – to the tune of more than $1 trillion .” It was a risky gamble, and it failed. Spectacularly.The balance sheet of Fannie and Freddie that was cut 6 months earlier was now in danger of collapse.It seems that the thin layer of cash reserves left over after the Bush Administration cut it 6 months earlier, wasn’t enough to cover their massive losses. Yet the financial media failed to note that the Bush Administration was partly responsible for this enormous calamity. But the Bush Administration was going to make it right. They were going to backstop Fannie and Freddie and calm investors … at least that was the plan . “The powers Paulson won from Congress last month enabling a government rescue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — authority he likened to a weapon whose mere existence made it unlikely it would have to be fired — may end up making a bailout more likely, say analysts and investors. They say the threat of government action is creating uncertainty that is raising the companies’ borrowing costs and increasing the odds Fannie and Freddie will need taxpayer funding .” The problem with the bailout plan is that Paulson is the implied threat of a de facto nationalization of the two mortgage giants. This would leave existing shareholders with pennies on the dollar. Thus the bailout plan that Bush and Paulson assured us they would never have to do, caused stock prices of Fannie and Freddie to crater. This reduced their capital reserves even further, increasing the chances of a taxpayer bailout. On the other side of the ledger, the Bush Administration also changed the rules in April 2008 to get the FHA more involved in the mortgage industry. According to James Bianco, “The government was using the Federal Home Loan Banks as a way to bail out the banking system early on.” One forgotten scandal was from late September 2008, the FHLB of Atlanta loaned Countrywide Financial $51 Billion in exchange for questionable mortgages as collateral. Countrywide went under shortly afterward. The decision to increase the FHA’s exposure to a collapsing housing market is now meeting its limits . “The share of borrowers who are falling seriously behind on loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration jumped by more than a third in the past year, foreshadowing a crush of foreclosures that could further buffet an agency vital to the housing market’s recovery. About 9.1 percent of FHA borrowers had missed at least three payments as of December, up from 6.5 percent a year ago, the agency’s figures show. If the trend continues and the FHA’s cash reserves are exhausted, the federal government would automatically use taxpayer money to cover the losses — a first for the agency, which has always used the fees it charges borrowers to pay for its losses. Adding to the trouble was a now-defunct FHA program that enabled sellers to cover the down payments of buyers. This meant many borrowers had no skin in the game and were more likely to walk away at early signs of trouble. The program resulted in excessive defaults before it was ended in late 2008, and it is projected to cost FHA an additional $10.5 billion in losses, Stevens said. The program in question was another Bush Administration idea to bail out the housing industry to the benefit of Wall Street. Meet the New Boss After inheriting this disastrous legacy from the Bush Administration, you could only assume that the Obama Administration would do things drastically different , right? “Fannie Mae will drop some credit-score requirements, reduce income-documentation standards and waive the need for appraisals in some cases, according to a notice yesterday to lenders posted on the Washington-based company’s Web site. The changes apply to loans that the company owns or guarantees.” Let me translate for you. “Drop credit-score requirements” equals subprime. “Reduce income-documentation standards” equals liar loans. And it just keeps getting better. The Obama Administration plans to subsidize at-risk borrowers . Has anyone bothered to ask “How long?” Meanwhile the Fed is buying up all those subprime, liar-loans that Fannie and Freddie are pumping out. On top of it, the next part of Obama’s plan had a ring of familiarity to it: “The loan-to-value (LTV) limit on mortgages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be able to refinance as part of Obama’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan may go higher than the original 105 percent, according to National Mortgage News.” Bush’s disastrous legacy was to at first ignore the bubble, then to try to keep it inflated until he was out of office by using Fannie and Freddie. Obama’s plan is to use taxpayer money to subsidize sub-prime, liar-loans at more than 105% of the home’s value with Fannie and Freddie as a conduit. Thus attempting to recreate all the properties of the bubble that got us into trouble in the first place. Seriously. Is this the best that Washington can do? Is our leadership really this bankrupt of ideas? One other item to note is that when the Obama Administration lifted all bailout caps, they also promised that plans on reforming Fannie and Freddie would be drawn up by February. Last week, that promise was broken . “The Obama administration will wait until 2011 to propose an overhaul of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said yesterday, arguing that he wanted to put some distance between a new system and what he called ‘the worst housing crisis in generations.’ ‘We can’t do everything right away,” he said.” We don’t expect you to do “everything” Timmy. We only expect you to do your job, which includes coming up with plans to reform these companies within the 13 months that you previously promised. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie continue to be traded on the stock exchange, hand out dividends to stock holders (while asking for taxpayer bailouts), and pay their CEOs as much as $6 million a year.

Read the full article →

AIG May Be Allowed to Raise Salaries for Top-Earning Executives This Year

March 2, 2010

By Hugh Son and Ian Katz March 2 (Bloomberg) — American International Group Inc. , the bailed-out insurer, may be allowed by the U.S. paymaster to boost salaries for some of its highest-compensated executives, two people with knowledge of the matter said. Among AIG’s 25 top-paid managers, some will get raises of less than 10 percent, while others will have their pay cut, according to one of the people, who declined to be identified because final determinations haven’t been made. The reductions would be smaller than in 2009, the person said. An announcement may be made this month, the people said. AIG’s top leaders had their cash salaries slashed by an average of 91 percent last year as Kenneth Feinberg , the Obama administration special master for executive compensation, used more stock to link awards to company performance. AIG Chairman Harvey Golub told shareholders last week that the cuts made “ little business sense” because the firm couldn’t keep some of its best managers. “Feinberg realizes that to retain talent, you can’t be as confining as they were last year,” said Jeanne Branthover , a managing director at Boyden Global Executive Search Ltd. in New York. “For AIG to be successful and pay back the government, it’s all about their people.” Feinberg, a Washington lawyer, controls pay for the 25 top- earners at AIG and advises on the compensation for the next 75 workers. Less than half of the group of 25 may get raises, and overall individual awards, including deferred compensation, won’t necessarily increase, said one of the people. Mark Herr , an AIG spokesman, declined to comment. Salary Cap “We are in the middle of discussions with AIG and nothing has been decided,” Andrew Williams , a Treasury spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “As we have said before, we are not going to provide a running commentary on Mr. Feinberg’s work.” In October, Feinberg instituted a $500,000 base salary cap for most employees of AIG, which is majority owned by the government after a bailout that swelled to $182.3 billion. Exceptions were made for those considered essential to AIG’s success, including Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche , 65, and Peter Hancock , the former chief financial officer of a predecessor to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Benmosche secured a salary of $3 million in cash and $4 million in stock last year. Hancock, who oversees finance and risk, is getting $1.5 million in cash and $2.4 million in stock, AIG said last month. More than 60 managers have left AIG since its 2008 rescue, including General Counsel Anastasia Kelly , who told Fortune magazine last month that her $900,000 base salary would have been slashed to $500,000 and that she might have jeopardized a severance payment if she stayed. ‘Little Business Sense’ “While we can pay the vast majority of people competitively, on occasion, these restrictions and his decisions have yielded outcomes that make little business sense,” Golub, 70, said of Feinberg last week. “In some cases we are prevented from providing market-competitive compensation to retain some of our most experienced and best executives. This hurts the business and makes it harder to repay the taxpayers.” About half the executives on the previous top-25 list have departed since the insurer’s September 2008 bailout, and several managers who had been in the group of 75 last year are now among the top 25 earners, said one of the people. Bailed Out “AIG owes the taxpayer a huge amount of money and we want to make sure that my compensation practices take into account the need for AIG to thrive,” Feinberg said in a Dec. 11 interview with Bloomberg Television. Feinberg in October approved the payment of a combined $2.6 million in retention bonuses to Chief Financial Officer David Herzog and Kristian Moor , a property-casualty manager. Feinberg said he determined the bonuses, which were previously committed by the insurer to Herzog and Moor, wouldn’t be cut because the executives were “deemed to be particularly critical to AIG’s long-term financial success.” He said he weighed the awards in determining cuts to their salaries. Feinberg, 64, formerly oversaw the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. He is responsible for setting pay at firms including Chrysler Group LLC, GMAC Inc. and AIG that were among the top recipients of bailout funds. AIG said last month that it was overhauling its incentive system to reward employees for performance. A backlash against AIG’s bonuses for employees in the derivatives unit blamed for the firm’s near-collapse peaked in March of last year with President Barack Obama criticizing the awards. To contact the reporters on this story: Hugh Son in New York at hson1@bloomberg.net ; Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

AIG Top-Earning Managers May Get 2010 Salary Raises After Feinberg Review

March 2, 2010

By Hugh Son and Ian Katz March 2 (Bloomberg) — American International Group Inc. , the bailed-out insurer, may be allowed by the U.S. paymaster to boost salaries for some of its highest-compensated executives, two people with knowledge of the matter said. Among AIG’s 25 top-paid managers, some will get raises of less than 10 percent, while others will have their pay cut, according to one of the people, who declined to be identified because final determinations haven’t been made. The reductions would be smaller than in 2009, the person said. An announcement may be made this month, the people said. AIG’s top leaders had their cash salaries slashed by an average of 91 percent last year as Kenneth Feinberg , the Obama administration special master for executive compensation, used more stock to link awards to company performance. AIG Chairman Harvey Golub told shareholders last week that the cuts made “ little business sense” because the firm couldn’t keep some of its best mangers. “Feinberg realizes that to retain talent, you can’t be as confining as they were last year,” said Jeanne Branthover , a managing director at Boyden Global Executive Search Ltd. in New York. “For AIG to be successful and pay back the government, it’s all about their people.” Feinberg, a Washington lawyer, controls pay for the 25 top- earners at AIG and advises on the compensation for the next 75 workers. Less than half of the group of 25 may get raises, and overall individual awards, including deferred compensation, won’t necessarily increase, said one of the people. Mark Herr , an AIG spokesman, declined to comment. “We are in the middle of discussions with AIG and nothing has been decided,” Andrew Williams , a Treasury spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “As we have said before, we are not going to provide a running commentary on Mr. Feinberg’s work.” Benmosche, Hancock In October, Feinberg instituted a $500,000 base salary cap for most employees of AIG, which is majority owned by the government after a bailout that swelled to $182.3 billion. Exceptions were made for those considered essential to AIG’s success, including Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche , 65, and Peter Hancock , the former chief financial officer of a predecessor to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Benmosche secured a salary of $3 million in cash and $4 million in stock last year. Hancock, who oversees finance and risk, is getting $1.5 million in cash and $2.4 million in stock, AIG said last month. More than 60 managers have left AIG since its 2008 rescue, including General Counsel Anastasia Kelly , who told Fortune magazine last month that her $900,000 base salary would have been slashed to $500,000 and that she might have jeopardized a severance payment if she stayed. About half the executives on the previous top-25 list have departed since the insurer’s September 2008 bailout, and several managers who had been in the group of 75 last year are now among the top 25 earners, said one of the people. Bailed Out “AIG owes the taxpayer a huge amount of money and we want to make sure that my compensation practices take into account the need for AIG to thrive,” Feinberg said in a Dec. 11 interview with Bloomberg Television. Feinberg, 64, formerly oversaw the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. He is responsible for setting pay at firms including Chrysler Group LLC, GMAC Inc. and AIG that were among the top recipients of bailout funds. AIG said last month that it was overhauling its incentive system to reward employees for performance. A backlash against AIG’s bonuses for employees in the derivatives unit blamed for the firm’s near-collapse peaked in March of last year with President Barack Obama criticizing the awards. To contact the reporter on this story: Hugh Son in New York at hson1@bloomberg.net Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Senate Banking Negotiators Said to Drop Obama’s Consumer Financial Agency

March 1, 2010

By Alison Vekshin and Robert Schmidt March 1 (Bloomberg) — Senate Banking Committee negotiators, working through the weekend, agreed to drop the stand-alone consumer agency sought by the Obama administration and opposed by the banking industry, removing an obstacle that has stalled new U.S. financial rules. Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd , a Connecticut Democrat, joined committee Republicans in seeking an alternative to the Obama proposal. Democrats and Republicans are still seeking a deal to place consumer powers within another regulator, said people with knowledge of the discussions who declined to be identified because the talks are private. “While this presents a new set of issues for regulatory reform, it does resolve a fairly significant and sensitive one for the banking industry: a consumer financial protection agency completely de-linked from the safety-and-soundness regulators,” said Kevin Petrasic , a lawyer at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP in Washington. The negotiations focused on President Barack Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which stalled talks on the overhaul, with Dodd proposing a bureau in the Treasury and Senator Richard Shelby , the committee’s top Republican, suggesting such powers go to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Neither proposal advanced, a Senate aide said. Talks between the two lawmakers on the legislation had collapsed last month. Senator Bob Corker , a Tennessee Republican and an opponent of the independent agency who is working with Dodd on a compromise, has proposed that consumer responsibilities be assigned to the Federal Reserve, said a person familiar with the senator’s discussions. Industry Opposition The financial-services industry opposes the consumer agency more than any other provision in the Obama plan and has lobbied lawmakers to defeat it. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon called the agency “just a whole new bureaucracy” during a December conference call with analysts. Dodd proposed a Bureau of Financial Protection in the Treasury with power to write rules for financial-services companies, funded mainly through industry fees and headed by a director appointed by the White House, according to a two-page summary Dodd circulated over the weekend. “I’m more concerned about what powers it has,” Dodd said in a Feb. 26 interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” Committee Republicans rejected Dodd’s proposal because it split consumer protection from the safety-and-soundness responsibility of bank regulators, according to a Senate aide who declined to be identified because negotiations are private. Safety-and-Soundness “It is important for the CFPA to be located in an agency with substantial safety-and-soundness responsibilities so that these goals work together rather than at cross purposes,” said Oliver Ireland , former Federal Reserve associate general counsel and now partner at law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP in Washington. “This probably means it should not be at Treasury.” Shelby’s staff on Feb. 26 circulated two proposals to committee Republicans. One calls for a three-member Financial Products Consumer Protection Council with a chairman appointed by the president, the FDIC chairman and the director of a newly created federal bank regulator, according to a one-page summary obtained by Bloomberg News. The other would establish a consumer protection division at the FDIC to be run by a director appointed by the president with a five-member board, according to a two-page summary. Both Republican proposals give the consumer unit the power to write rules, including banning unfair or deceptive practices, a power now held by bank regulators including the Federal Reserve. It would develop plain-English disclosures and lead all federal consumer financial literacy efforts. Dodd Rejects Plan Dodd rejected Shelby’s proposal, according to the Senate aide. Talks continued through the weekend, Corker spokeswoman Laura Herzog said yesterday in an e-mail. The House in December passed a financial overhaul bill that included a stand-alone consumer agency. The agency is needed because regulators consider consumer protections “as a second thought,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , the architect of the House bill, said in a Feb. 18 Bloomberg Television interview. Separately, Senator James Webb , a Virginia Democrat, plans to advance this week a proposal to tax bonuses for companies that received at least $5 billion in the taxpayer bailout. Webb will offer the measure an amendment to legislation extending business and personal tax provisions that expired in 2009, said Jessica Smith, Webb’s spokeswoman. Webb and Senator Barbara Boxer , a California Democrat, proposed a 50 percent tax on any bonuses exceeding $400,000. The Senate last year retreated from a bill approved by the House that would have put a 90 percent tax on bonuses at firms receiving U.S. aid. The House passed the measure after retention pay for AIG employees sparked a public outcry. To contact the reporters on this story: Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net ; Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Europe Demands Greece Cut Budget Deficit as Bloc Crafts $34 Billion Rescue

February 28, 2010

By Simon Kennedy and Maria Petrakis March 1 (Bloomberg) — European Union Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn will likely push Greece to do more to cut its budget deficit today as governments craft a possible rescue package for the cash-strapped nation. Rehn will meet with Prime Minister George Papandreou as German lawmakers say euro-area officials are devising a plan to grant Greece about 25 billion euros ($34 billion) in aid should it need help financing its debt, possibly by using state-owned lenders such as the KfW Group to buy its bonds. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker signaled yesterday that Rehn will warn Greece it must do more to narrow the EU’s largest budget gap and can’t rely on taxpayers elsewhere to help until it acts. Adding to the political pressure, the fiscal strategy of Papandreou’s government may soon be tested by investors as it readies a sale of as much as 5 billion euros of 10-year notes. “If the Greek government cannot raise the necessary funds in the commercial market, which continues to look unlikely, then bilateral loans will be forthcoming,” said Erik Nielsen , chief European economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in London. Rehn arrives after European officials pored over the government’s books to verify it’s doing enough to knock 4 percentage points off its budget deficit from last year’s 12.7 percent of gross domestic product. The country has until March 16 to satisfy fellow EU governments that its deficit reduction plan is on track and faces being pressed to increase consumer taxes and lower capital spending if it can’t show sufficient progress. ‘Additional Actions’ Juncker, who speaks for euro-area finance ministers, yesterday indicated more will be demanded. Greece needs to “take additional actions” to pare its shortfall and “must understand that the taxpayer in Germany, Belgium or Luxembourg isn’t prepared to correct the mistakes of Greek fiscal policy,” he told Eleftherotypia newspaper. In an interview with ARD Television, Merkel denied money has been set aside to bail out Greece and said the country has to “do its homework.” Speaking after the euro recorded its third straight monthly loss against the dollar, its longest losing streak since November 2008, Merkel said the single currency is “certainly facing the most difficult phase.” Billionaire investor George Soros said on CNN yesterday that the euro “may not survive” the Greek turmoil. Bonds Investors last week continued to question Greece’s chances of cutting its budget deficit. Greek two-year yields rose by as much as 75 basis points on Feb. 25, the most since Jan. 20. The spread between 10-year German bunds and Greek securities of a similar maturity widened 12 basis points in the week to 330 basis points. Still, the cost of insuring against default on Greek government debt fell for the first day in more than a week on Feb. 26 on speculation the nation will pledge tougher steps. Credit-default swaps on Greece dropped 35.6 basis points to 364.02, according to CMA Datavision. The contracts are down from Feb. 4’s record 428.25 basis points. Papandreou told the Greek parliament on Feb. 26 that the nation will “meet the challenge with whatever cost and pain we will need to go through.” Government spokesman George Petalotis said in an interview the same day that more measures will be concerned if the EU deems it necessary. Greece needs to raise 53 billion euros this year and redeem more than 20 billion euros of bonds by the end of May, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It vows to reduce its budget gap below the EU limit of 3 percent of GDP in 2012. The European Commission forecasts a debt equivalent to 124.9 percent of GDP this year. KfW KfW’s purchase of Greek bonds, backed by German government guarantees, would be an emergency measure as it would risk inviting investors to speculate against other euro region countries, the German lawmakers said on condition of anonymity because the information is confidential. France’s state-owned Caisse des Depots may also be involved, Greece’s Ta Nea newspaper reported Feb. 27. The Wall Street Journal said the plan may total 30 billion euros. “Greece won’t be allowed to sink on the condition it respects its commitments to stabilize its budget,” French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde told Europe 1 radio yesterday. “We have a certain number of proposals in the euro zone, involving either private partners or public partners or both.” Strikes EU leaders ordered Greece on Feb. 11 to slash its budget deficit, while promising “determined” yet unspecified action to help if needed. Papandreou will on March 5 meet with Merkel, who yesterday suggested she is worried “emotions” may be spinning out of control. Complicating the country’s efforts last week were another round of strikes and warnings from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service that they may soon cut Greece’s debt rating if the government flounders in reducing its deficit. The government intends to sell 10-year notes by early March, according to a Jan. 26 statement from the Public Debt Management Agency. Fund managers who may take part in the issue say Greece must offer the biggest premium over benchmark German debt since 1998, paying a coupon of about 7 percent. To contact the reporters on this story: Simon Kennedy in Paris at skennedy4@bloomberg.net ; Maria Petrakis in Athens at mpetrakis@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Greek $34 Billion Rescue Plan From EU Emerging as Deficit Pressure Mounts

February 28, 2010

By Simon Kennedy and Maria Petrakis Feb. 28 (Bloomberg) — European Union governments are piecing together a possible rescue package for Greece as they demand it first intensifies efforts to slash the bloc’s biggest budget deficit. With EU Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn flying to Athens tonight for talks, German lawmakers say euro-area officials are crafting a plan to grant Greece about 25 billion euros ($34 billion) in aid should the need arise, possibly by using state-owned lenders such as Germany’s KfW Group to buy its debt. Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker signaled today that Rehn will use his visit to warn Greece it must do more to regain control of its budget and can’t rely on taxpayers elsewhere to help until it does. Adding to the political pressure, the fiscal strategy of Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou’s government may soon be tested by investors as it readies a sale of as much as 5 billion euros of 10-year notes. “Greece won’t be allowed to sink on the condition it respects its commitments to stabilize its budget,” French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde told Europe 1 radio today. “We have a certain number of proposals in the euro zone, involving either private partners or public partners or both.” March 16 Deadline Rehn arrives in the Greek capital after a week in which European officials pored over the government’s books to verify it’s doing enough to knock 4 percentage points off its budget deficit from last year’s 12.7 percent of gross domestic product. The country has until March 16 to satisfy other governments that its plan is on track and risks being pushed to increase consumer taxes and cut capital spending if it can’t show sufficient progress. “Markets still don’t believe that the Greek people are willing to accept such bitter medicine or that the government has the will to see this through,” said Razeen Sally, co-director of the Brussels-based European Centre for International Political Economy . Juncker, who speaks for euro-area finance ministers, today indicated more will be demanded. Greece needs to “take additional actions” to reduce its shortfall and “must understand that the taxpayer in Germany, Belgium or Luxembourg isn’t prepared to correct the mistakes of Greek fiscal policy,” he told Eleftherotypia newspaper. ‘Meet the Challenge’ Papandreou told the Greek parliament on Feb. 26 that the nation will “meet the challenge with whatever cost and pain we will need to go through.” Government spokesman George Petalotis said in an interview the same day that the country will consider taking more measures if the EU evaluations deem it necessary. Greece needs to raise 53 billion euros this year and faces more than 20 billion euros of bond redemptions by the end of May, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It vows to reduce its budget gap below the EU limit of 3 percent of GDP in 2012. KfW’s purchase of Greek bonds, backed by German government guarantees, would be an emergency measure as it would risk inviting investors to speculate against other euro region countries, the German lawmakers said on condition of anonymity because the information is confidential. France’s state-owned Caisse des Depots may also be involved, Greece’s Ta Nea newspaper reported yesterday, while the Wall Street Journal said today the plan may run as large as 30 billion euros. Deutsche Bank CEO EU leaders ordered the country on Feb. 11 to cut its budget deficit, while promising “determined” yet unspecified action to help if needed. Papandreou is scheduled to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin on March 5 and President Barack Obama in Washington on March 9. He met Deutsche Bank AG Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann on Feb. 26. Complicating the country’s efforts this week were another round of strikes and warnings from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service that they may soon cut Greece’s debt rating if the government flounders in reducing its deficit. Investors continued to question its strategy this week. Greek two-year yields rose by as much as 75 basis points on Feb. 25, the most since Jan. 20. The spread between 10-year German bunds and Greek securities of a similar maturity widened 12 basis points in the week to 330 basis points. CDS Down Still, the cost of insuring against default on Greek government debt fell for the first day in a week on Feb. 26 on speculation the nation will pledge tougher measures. Credit-default swaps on Greece dropped 35.6 basis points to 364.02, according to CMA Datavision. The contracts are down from Feb. 4’s record 428.25 basis points. The government intends to sell 10-year notes by early March, according to a Jan. 26 statement from the Public Debt Management Agency. Fund managers who may take part in the issue say Greece must offer the biggest premium over benchmark German debt since 1998, paying a coupon of about 7 percent. To contact the reporters on this story: Simon Kennedy in Paris at skennedy4@bloomberg.net ; Maria Petrakis in Athens at mpetrakis@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Lloyds Has Wider-Than-Estimated Loss as HBOS Takeover Increases Bad Loans

February 26, 2010

By Andrew MacAskill and Jon Menon Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) — Lloyds Banking Group Plc , Britain’s biggest mortgage lender, posted a wider-than-expected full-year loss as loan losses rose “significantly” in 2009 on the bank’s takeover of HBOS Plc . Lloyds’s pretax loss narrowed to 6.3 billion pounds ($9.6 billion) from 6.7 billion pounds in 2008, the London-based bank said in a statement today. That missed the 6.1 billion-pound median loss estimated by 22 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Lloyds fell in London trading. Bad loan losses were “significantly higher” at 24 billion pounds, the lender said today. They declined 21 percent in the second half compared with the first six months. “The HBOS legacy still weighs heavily on Lloyds, although these numbers do show some signs of encouragement,” Richard Hunter , Head of UK Equities at Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers, said in a note to clients. “Lloyds remains as something of a U.K. recovery play and therefore hostage to the fortunes of the broader economic picture.” Lloyds completed the U.K.’s biggest rights offering last year to raise 13.5 billion pounds, enabling it to shun a government program capping losses on toxic assets. The bank, which is 41 percent owned by the taxpayer, has taken about 20.5 billion pounds in taxpayer-funded support since buying HBOS in January 2009, a deal that left the bank saddled with bad loans. “We are seeing commercial property impairments and mortgage coming down quite nicely,” Chief Executive Officer Eric Daniels , 58, said in an interview. “Margin, costs and impairments are all heading in the right direction and that gives a strong trajectory.” Loan Impairments Lloyds lost 2.7 percent to 53.40 pence at 9:32 a.m. in London trading for a market value of 35.8 billion pounds. The FTSE 350 Index of U.K. banks gained 1.1 percent. Banking net interest margin improved to 1.83 per cent in the second half of the year, compared to 1.72 per cent in the first half. The bank said it saw “further significant reductions” in impairments in 2010 and beyond, “assuming current economic expectations.” Economic growth in the U.K. will be slow and below trend, the bank said. Lloyds said it had focused on the loan portfolio from HBOS Plc , which it took over in January 2009, with “the greatest attention paid to the over-concentration in real estate related lending and those portfolios that fall outside the Lloyds TSB risk appetite.” That led the bank to “prudent and material impairment charges especially in the first half of the year.” Falling Mortgage Share Lloyds is losing market share of new U.K. mortgages after reducing loans. Gross new mortgage lending in 2009 dropped to 35 billion pounds from 78 billion pounds in 2008. That reduced Lloyds’s share of gross new lending to 24 per cent compared with 31 percent in 2008. Overall, mortgage balances outstanding at 31 December 2009 totaled 345.9 billion pounds, a drop of 3.7 billion pounds in the year. Banco Santander SA , Spain’s biggest bank, increased its gross U.K. market share to 18.6 percent in 2009 from 13.9 per cent a year earlier, the lender said when it announced full-year results this month. Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc , Britain’s biggest government-owned lender, yesterday reported a narrower-than- expected full-year net loss buoyed by profit at its investment bank and slowing impairments. Barclays Plc, the U.K.’s second biggest bank, more than doubled profit to 7.5 billion pounds the bank said last week. HSBC Holdings Plc reports results March 1. Government Funding At the end of last year, Lloyds said it had gained 157 billion pounds of funding support from the government and central bank. A reduction in the bank’s balance sheet “will avoid the necessity to refinance much of this funding,” Lloyds said. The bank announced about 15,000 job cuts during the year, it said. Daniels is forgoing his 2.3 million pound bonus for 2009 following the lead of executives at Barclays and RBS who are waiving their right to a bonus. The government has pressed banks to cut or defer bonuses amid taxpayer anger over payouts. “I took a very personal decision to forgo bonuses because I thought it was really clouding the view of what Lloyds is accomplishing,” Daniels said. “So I thought I would remove that from the table.” Pretax profit at the bank’s retail unit fell by 1.57 billion pounds to 975 million, reflecting lower income and higher impairments, the bank said. Group net interest income decreased by 15 percent to 12.7 billion. To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew MacAskill in London at amacaskill@bloomberg.net ; Jon Menon in London at jmenon1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Paul Volcker Says Mortgage Market Will ‘Have To Be Reconstructed’ (VIDEO)

February 19, 2010

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said the nation’s home mortgage market is in trouble and will have to be “reconstructed.” “It’s totally dependent, heavily dependent on government participation,” Volcker said Friday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “It shouldn’t be that way. That’s going to have to be reconstructed.” The federal government was responsible for up to 95 percent of all new home mortgages in the fourth quarter of 2009, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance , a leading industry publication. “Anyone who looks at the numbers says, ‘My God, look what it’s come to,’” Cecala said in an interview Friday. While Volcker hopes the nation’s home mortgage finance system lessens its dependence on taxpayers, Cecala said it’s going to be nearly impossible for a significant change to take place over the next year. “We can’t,” Cecala said. “It certainly can’t change in 2010. It’s like saying we’re going to make some improvements in the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg.” There were $390 billion in new mortgage originations, including home equity lines, in the last quarter of 2009, according to Cecala’s firm. Excluding the home equity lines, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration stood behind up to 95 percent of those mortgages. Just a few years ago the government was responsible for about 40 percent of all new home mortgages, Cecala said. By buying up mortgages from lenders, Fannie and Freddie control about $5.5 trillion in home mortgages, according to their federal regulator. That’s nearly half of all outstanding mortgage debt in this country. Their share of the mortgage market is nearly double what it was 20 years ago. They were effectively nationalized in September 2008. Cecala noted that in 2005, the amount of private mortgage-backed securities exceeded the total output of Fannie, Freddie, FHA and the VA combined. That year there was about $613 billion in private bonds that contained creditworthy mortgages (excluding subprime). In 2009, there was just $5.5 billion. Attracting lenders and investors back into mortgage finance, without the promise of a government guarantee, will be key to lessening the federal government’s involvement. That means getting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dial back their taxpayer-subsidized purchases and guarantees of mortgages. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not a good idea in the first place,” Volcker said. “This hybrid public, private thing sooner or later was going to get you in trouble — and it sure got us in trouble big time,” he said. “I hope we don’t go back to that model.” Cecala said that unless the private securitization market returns, it’ll be hard for the federal government to dial back its involvement. While analysts expect an uptick in private mortgage securitizations this year, Cecala said it won’t be enough. The government “needs to provide a way to support the…market, and I don’t know how they’re going to do it without some sort of government guarantee,” Cecala said. One approach could be for the government to guarantee mortgages held and securitized by banks, and then slowly decrease the level of that guarantee until confidence fully returns. Last month , House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) vowed to get rid of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of an overhaul of the country’s taxpayer-supported system for financing home loans. “The remedy here is to, in fact, as I believe this committee will be recommending, abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new system of housing finance,” Frank said. “That’s the approach, rather than a piecemeal one.” The Obama administration expects to outline its future plans for Fannie and Freddie later this year. WATCH the Volcker interview:

Read the full article →

Michael Blumenfield, M.D.: Huge Compensation Packages Should Be Approved by Stockholders

February 17, 2010

WellPoint Insurance Company Wants A 25 % Increase From Policy Holders The Los Angeles Times recently reported that WellPoint Inc., a subsidiary of Anthem Blue Cross, is planning to increase health insurance rates of its policy holders by an average of 25%, with some people facing as much as a 39% increase. When HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius heard about this she said, “It remains difficult to understand how a company that made 2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone can justify massive increases that will leave consumers with nothing but bad options.” Brian Sassi, president and CEO of the Anthem Blue Cross Consumer Business replied, “The Anthem Blue Cross unit at the heart of the inquiry lost millions in 2009″ Compensation of Healthcare Executives Well Into the Multimillion Dollar Range I couldn’t find a record of the salary of Sassi but I did find a report that in 2008 the CEO of WellPoint, (the subsidiary that recently lost millions), Angela Brayer , received $9,844,212 total compensation. Six years ago Larry Glasscok the top executive at Anthem Blue Cross, of which WellPoint is a component, received a 42.5 million dollar bonus on top of his multimillion dollar salary. Other healthcare CEOs receive multimillion dollar salaries and large bonuses. The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth , chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million with his total compensation package worth 4.3 million, even though the health insurer’s membership declined and its net income fell 49 percent. Corporate Compensation Especially Those Receiving Bailouts Are Even Higher The average CEO of companies in the S & P 500 was 10.1 million dollars per year The CEOs at 20 banks that were granted US aid received compensation 37% higher than the this group . Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid CEOs an average of 13.8 million per year., The average CEO pay was 430 times larger than for typical workers. Some other remarkable compensation packages stand out. Citigroup — which received about 25% of the aid going to the nine banks — has the No. 1 pay recipient. Andrew Hall, who heads Citigroup’s energy-trading unit Phibro LLC, received $98.9 million in 2008, according to a government official. Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit, by comparison, received more than $38 million last year. Should There Be a Law? It seemed that there was nothing much anybody could do about these compensations except make some noise. That outcry led to at least one company requiring that their executives would be required to give a certain amount of their bonuses to charity (with a tax deduction, of course.) There has been a proposal from Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio that there be a 50% tax on bonuses over $25,000 but before we consider this, I think that we need to look at the big picture. I am not an expert in the world of financial compensation. I am a psychiatrist who worked either with an hourly fee or with an academic salary (no complaints). I also strongly believe in the free enterprise system. People who create a business should be entitled to whatever profit they can make in the competitive world. Perhaps there should be some exceptions if people’s health or lives are endangered. That may be one of the reasons that doctor’s fees are set by Medicare and to a certain extent by insurance companies. I don’t believe that the government should set corporate compensation. In those limited situations where the government spends the taxpayer’s money to allow a company to survive there should be some extra tax or payback. Proposal Requiring Stockholders to Vote on Executive Compensation The owners of the company should have something to say before executives are given multimillion dollar compensations. You would think that this is the case now. Not exactly, the way I see it. As I understand it, the salary of the CEO is set by the Board of Directors or a component compensation committee. The salary of other executives is set by the CEO and/or with approval of the board. But I don’t view the Board of Directors as really being the voice of the stockholders or the true owners. Perhaps you can make a case that indirectly they are because they ultimately approve new board members who are nominated by other members or the CEO (or in some cases by a petition). The board members are often friends of the CEO or are beholden to him/her through perks or other complicated political benefits. Why not have the real owners directly approve these very high salaries and bonuses? I would like to see Henry Waxman (my Congressman), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, propose federal legislation which would require the following: Any compensation (salary plus bonuses including stock options) of an executive of a publicly owned company that was more than 200 times the minimum wage would have to be approved by a majority vote of the stockholders of that company. Any vote to increase the compensation of employees at the above level would require that the stockholders would have to vote either no increase, increase to cover inflation or a series of one or more levels of compensation put forth by the board or compensation committee. Information about the reasons for the suggested alternatives would be provided along with benchmarking data from other similar companies. New executives could be hired at the pay of the previous executives in the same position but the stockholders would vote approval of the compensation within 3 years. Continued compensation over 200 times the minimum wage would have to be approved by this method every three years. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour or approximately $15,080/year so I am suggesting that stockholders will have to approve any total compensation more than 3.0 million dollars per year or 200 times minimum wage. If the owners of a company feel their executive is worth more than 200 times the minimum wage, or even $98 million as in one case above and that they really couldn’t hire anybody else to get the job done at lower compensation, let them pay the money. The owners of a company should be allowed to do this even if the company loses money and needs a bailout to survive. I would like to hear opinions about this proposal.

Read the full article →

Michael Blumenfield, M.D.: Huge Compensation Packages Should Be Approved by Stockholders

February 17, 2010

WellPoint Insurance Company Wants A 25 % Increase From Policy Holders The Los Angeles Times recently reported that WellPoint Inc., a subsidiary of Anthem Blue Cross, is planning to increase health insurance rates of its policy holders by an average of 25%, with some people facing as much as a 39% increase. When HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius heard about this she said, “It remains difficult to understand how a company that made 2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone can justify massive increases that will leave consumers with nothing but bad options.” Brian Sassi, president and CEO of the Anthem Blue Cross Consumer Business replied, “The Anthem Blue Cross unit at the heart of the inquiry lost millions in 2009″ Compensation of Healthcare Executives Well Into the Multimillion Dollar Range I couldn’t find a record of the salary of Sassi but I did find a report that in 2008 the CEO of WellPoint, (the subsidiary that recently lost millions), Angela Brayer , received $9,844,212 total compensation. Six years ago Larry Glasscok the top executive at Anthem Blue Cross, of which WellPoint is a component, received a 42.5 million dollar bonus on top of his multimillion dollar salary. Other healthcare CEOs receive multimillion dollar salaries and large bonuses. The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth , chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million with his total compensation package worth 4.3 million, even though the health insurer’s membership declined and its net income fell 49 percent. Corporate Compensation Especially Those Receiving Bailouts Are Even Higher The average CEO of companies in the S & P 500 was 10.1 million dollars per year The CEOs at 20 banks that were granted US aid received compensation 37% higher than the this group . Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid CEOs an average of 13.8 million per year., The average CEO pay was 430 times larger than for typical workers. Some other remarkable compensation packages stand out. Citigroup — which received about 25% of the aid going to the nine banks — has the No. 1 pay recipient. Andrew Hall, who heads Citigroup’s energy-trading unit Phibro LLC, received $98.9 million in 2008, according to a government official. Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit, by comparison, received more than $38 million last year. Should There Be a Law? It seemed that there was nothing much anybody could do about these compensations except make some noise. That outcry led to at least one company requiring that their executives would be required to give a certain amount of their bonuses to charity (with a tax deduction, of course.) There has been a proposal from Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio that there be a 50% tax on bonuses over $25,000 but before we consider this, I think that we need to look at the big picture. I am not an expert in the world of financial compensation. I am a psychiatrist who worked either with an hourly fee or with an academic salary (no complaints). I also strongly believe in the free enterprise system. People who create a business should be entitled to whatever profit they can make in the competitive world. Perhaps there should be some exceptions if people’s health or lives are endangered. That may be one of the reasons that doctor’s fees are set by Medicare and to a certain extent by insurance companies. I don’t believe that the government should set corporate compensation. In those limited situations where the government spends the taxpayer’s money to allow a company to survive there should be some extra tax or payback. Proposal Requiring Stockholders to Vote on Executive Compensation The owners of the company should have something to say before executives are given multimillion dollar compensations. You would think that this is the case now. Not exactly, the way I see it. As I understand it, the salary of the CEO is set by the Board of Directors or a component compensation committee. The salary of other executives is set by the CEO and/or with approval of the board. But I don’t view the Board of Directors as really being the voice of the stockholders or the true owners. Perhaps you can make a case that indirectly they are because they ultimately approve new board members who are nominated by other members or the CEO (or in some cases by a petition). The board members are often friends of the CEO or are beholden to him/her through perks or other complicated political benefits. Why not have the real owners directly approve these very high salaries and bonuses? I would like to see Henry Waxman (my Congressman), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, propose federal legislation which would require the following: Any compensation (salary plus bonuses including stock options) of an executive of a publicly owned company that was more than 200 times the minimum wage would have to be approved by a majority vote of the stockholders of that company. Any vote to increase the compensation of employees at the above level would require that the stockholders would have to vote either no increase, increase to cover inflation or a series of one or more levels of compensation put forth by the board or compensation committee. Information about the reasons for the suggested alternatives would be provided along with benchmarking data from other similar companies. New executives could be hired at the pay of the previous executives in the same position but the stockholders would vote approval of the compensation within 3 years. Continued compensation over 200 times the minimum wage would have to be approved by this method every three years. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour or approximately $15,080/year so I am suggesting that stockholders will have to approve any total compensation more than 3.0 million dollars per year or 200 times minimum wage. If the owners of a company feel their executive is worth more than 200 times the minimum wage, or even $98 million as in one case above and that they really couldn’t hire anybody else to get the job done at lower compensation, let them pay the money. The owners of a company should be allowed to do this even if the company loses money and needs a bailout to survive. I would like to hear opinions about this proposal.

Read the full article →

Michael Blumenfield, M.D.: Huge Compensation Packages Should Be Approved by Stockholders

February 17, 2010

WellPoint Insurance Company Wants A 25 % Increase From Policy Holders The Los Angeles Times recently reported that WellPoint Inc., a subsidiary of Anthem Blue Cross, is planning to increase health insurance rates of its policy holders by an average of 25%, with some people facing as much as a 39% increase. When HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius heard about this she said, “It remains difficult to understand how a company that made 2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone can justify massive increases that will leave consumers with nothing but bad options.” Brian Sassi, president and CEO of the Anthem Blue Cross Consumer Business replied, “The Anthem Blue Cross unit at the heart of the inquiry lost millions in 2009″ Compensation of Healthcare Executives Well Into the Multimillion Dollar Range I couldn’t find a record of the salary of Sassi but I did find a report that in 2008 the CEO of WellPoint, (the subsidiary that recently lost millions), Angela Brayer , received $9,844,212 total compensation. Six years ago Larry Glasscok the top executive at Anthem Blue Cross, of which WellPoint is a component, received a 42.5 million dollar bonus on top of his multimillion dollar salary. Other healthcare CEOs receive multimillion dollar salaries and large bonuses. The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth , chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million with his total compensation package worth 4.3 million, even though the health insurer’s membership declined and its net income fell 49 percent. Corporate Compensation Especially Those Receiving Bailouts Are Even Higher The average CEO of companies in the S & P 500 was 10.1 million dollars per year The CEOs at 20 banks that were granted US aid received compensation 37% higher than the this group . Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid CEOs an average of 13.8 million per year., The average CEO pay was 430 times larger than for typical workers. Some other remarkable compensation packages stand out. Citigroup — which received about 25% of the aid going to the nine banks — has the No. 1 pay recipient. Andrew Hall, who heads Citigroup’s energy-trading unit Phibro LLC, received $98.9 million in 2008, according to a government official. Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit, by comparison, received more than $38 million last year. Should There Be a Law? It seemed that there was nothing much anybody could do about these compensations except make some noise. That outcry led to at least one company requiring that their executives would be required to give a certain amount of their bonuses to charity (with a tax deduction, of course.) There has been a proposal from Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio that there be a 50% tax on bonuses over $25,000 but before we consider this, I think that we need to look at the big picture. I am not an expert in the world of financial compensation. I am a psychiatrist who worked either with an hourly fee or with an academic salary (no complaints). I also strongly believe in the free enterprise system. People who create a business should be entitled to whatever profit they can make in the competitive world. Perhaps there should be some exceptions if people’s health or lives are endangered. That may be one of the reasons that doctor’s fees are set by Medicare and to a certain extent by insurance companies. I don’t believe that the government should set corporate compensation. In those limited situations where the government spends the taxpayer’s money to allow a company to survive there should be some extra tax or payback. Proposal Requiring Stockholders to Vote on Executive Compensation The owners of the company should have something to say before executives are given multimillion dollar compensations. You would think that this is the case now. Not exactly, the way I see it. As I understand it, the salary of the CEO is set by the Board of Directors or a component compensation committee. The salary of other executives is set by the CEO and/or with approval of the board. But I don’t view the Board of Directors as really being the voice of the stockholders or the true owners. Perhaps you can make a case that indirectly they are because they ultimately approve new board members who are nominated by other members or the CEO (or in some cases by a petition). The board members are often friends of the CEO or are beholden to him/her through perks or other complicated political benefits. Why not have the real owners directly approve these very high salaries and bonuses? I would like to see Henry Waxman (my Congressman), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, propose federal legislation which would require the following: Any compensation (salary plus bonuses including stock options) of an executive of a publicly owned company that was more than 200 times the minimum wage would have to be approved by a majority vote of the stockholders of that company. Any vote to increase the compensation of employees at the above level would require that the stockholders would have to vote either no increase, increase to cover inflation or a series of one or more levels of compensation put forth by the board or compensation committee. Information about the reasons for the suggested alternatives would be provided along with benchmarking data from other similar companies. New executives could be hired at the pay of the previous executives in the same position but the stockholders would vote approval of the compensation within 3 years. Continued compensation over 200 times the minimum wage would have to be approved by this method every three years. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour or approximately $15,080/year so I am suggesting that stockholders will have to approve any total compensation more than 3.0 million dollars per year or 200 times minimum wage. If the owners of a company feel their executive is worth more than 200 times the minimum wage, or even $98 million as in one case above and that they really couldn’t hire anybody else to get the job done at lower compensation, let them pay the money. The owners of a company should be allowed to do this even if the company loses money and needs a bailout to survive. I would like to hear opinions about this proposal.

Read the full article →

Fed President: Great Depression Possible If Federal Reserve Stripped Of Bank Oversight

February 16, 2010

The U.S. risks falling into another “Great Depression” if the Federal Reserve is stripped of its bank oversight powers, a top Fed official warned Tuesday. In his first public speech since becoming the newest regional Fed chief, Minneapolis Fed President Narayana R. Kocherlakota took aim at calls for the nation’s central bank to relinquish its bank supervision authority. Acknowledging that the Fed made “significant mistakes” as a bank regulator, Kocherlakota nonetheless said the central bank’s actions in preventing the financial panic of 2007-08 from mushrooming into another Great Depression — including an expanded cheap lending program for financial institutions and last year’s publicly-released bank “stress tests” — was a “success” enabled because of its role as a bank supervisor. “Would we have had Depression 2.0 without the Federal Reserve’s using this range of policies? We will never know for sure,” the 46-year-old, the youngest of the 12 regional Fed presidents, said in his prepared remarks. “However, it is clear to me that these policies worked as intended…These policies eliminated the possibility of Depression 2.0.” [Emphasis in original] But, if Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s proposal to strip the Fed entirely of its bank supervision authority were to be implemented, it “would needlessly put a Great Depression on the menu of possibilities for our country,” Kocherlakota told a gathering of the Minnesota Bankers Association in Saint Paul . Kocherlakota’s public comments — his first since becoming Minneapolis Fed President in October — are among the most forceful uttered by a top Fed official since the secretive institution has come under fire for the taxpayer bailouts it conceived and oversaw for Wall Street firms, and its widely-panned lackadaisical approach to bank supervision. Kocherlakota was unsparing in his defense of the Fed. Specifically mentioning Dodd and his proposal, he asked rhetorically how the Fed’s cheap lending program for financial institutions would have worked had the central bank not already been a bank supervisor. After all, the Fed would want to know the condition of the institution it’s lending to before agreeing to fork over the cash. He answered his own question by pointing to “two distinct problems.” One, the bank regulator the Fed would presumably have relied on would have been too busy to respond. “During a crisis like 2007-09, this other regulator would necessarily face huge resource demands in terms of obtaining and sharing information about a financial institution’s quality,” Kocherlakota said. “Getting a phone answered in a timely fashion about a given financial institution might well be extremely challenging.” The second, bigger problem has to do with incentives, he said. Specifically, when the Fed agrees to make a loan to a financial firm it does so knowing that if it sours, the loss ends up on the Fed’s balance sheet. “It has every incentive to do a good job in assessing the borrower quality,” Kocherlakota said. But if the Fed had to rely on another agency, that agency’s incentives would not necessarily be aligned with the Fed’s. “What exactly are this other agency’s incentives to provide the Federal Reserve with the best possible information? This other agency is not going to suffer a loss for making a bad loan — the Federal Reserve is,” Kocherlakota said. “Indeed, one can readily imagine that in the politically charged circumstances of a financial panic, this other agency’s objective might be to keep as many banks alive as possible. “In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve would have no way to obtain reliable information from this other regulatory body and would have no way to make appropriately targeted loans,” he said. In other words, this other agency may not have the taxpayer’s interests at heart. Bloomberg reported Tuesday that “Robert E. Lucas Jr., 1995 winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Kocherlakota ‘the best abstract theorist ever to head a Federal Reserve bank.’” Next year he’ll play a role in setting interest rates as a voting member of the Fed’s top policy-making body, the Federal Open Market Committee . Kocherlakota also pointed to the stress tests federal bank regulators conducted last spring on the nation’s 19 biggest bank holding companies, the results of which were made public and have been acknowledged as having calmed the markets and boosting confidence in the banking system. If the Fed did not supervise banks, he argued, the stress tests “would never have taken place” because none of the other regulators were up to the task. In fact, so great is the Fed’s powers that if it had the kind of authority over the nation’s entire financial system that the House of Representatives recently authorized, Kocherlakota said the stress tests could have taken place in October or November of 2008 — a point near the height of the crisis and roughly five months before the stress tests officially began. That would have been “enormously helpful,” he said. “I hope that I have convinced you that these interventions would have been significantly more difficult, if not actually impossible, in a world in which the Federal Reserve did not have a supervisory role,” Kocherlakota told the group of bankers. He ended his remarks with the following warning: “Right now, our regulatory system has the ability to prevent those [financial] crises from generating 30 percent falls in output and unemployment rates of 25 percent [like the Great Depression]. When changing the system, we have to make sure that it doesn’t lose that ability. Stripping the Federal Reserve of its role in supervision is a step in the wrong direction.” READ his full speech below: Kocherlakota speech –

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: Obama is no FDR, We’re no Mass Movement

February 10, 2010

“The rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failures and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men… The money changers have fled their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.” –First Inaugural, Frankly D. Roosevelt, March ,4 1933 “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.” –Barack Obama, February 9, 2010 It’s open season on Obama whom so many hoped would lead us out of the neo-liberal wilderness. He once was a community organizer and ought to know how working people have suffered through a generation of tax breaks for the rich, Wall Street deregulation, and unfair competition. When the economy crashed he was in the perfect position to limit the unjustified pay levels on Wall Street and bring a crashing halt to the runaway financialization of our economy. Instead we got a multi-trillion dollar bailout for Wall Street, no health care reform, no serious financial reforms whatsoever, record unemployment, and political gridlock that’s will be with us for years to come. Is it his fault? Or ours? Obama has made his share of blunders. However, his statement that we “don’t begrudge” the high salaries on Wall Street because that’s part of the “free-market system” is about the dumbest thing he’s ever said. He was referring to Jamie Dimon’s $17.4 million payday, and Lloyd Blankfein’s $9 million. But surely the President knows that at this very moment Wall Street is still receiving $10.4 trillion (not billion) in subsidies from the taxpayer – and that’s after the TARP repayments. That’s some free-market. Dimon’s JP Morgan Chase still has a $34.3 billion subsidy, and Blankfein at Goldman Sachs is sitting on $23.9 billion of government welfare. (Many thanks to Nomi Prins for her first rate sleuthing. . ) Dimon and Blankfein would love to re-write history so that they could be portrayed as swashbuckling entrepreneurial survivors, men who avoided the bad risks that felled so many others. But without government welfare their institutions would have gone under. They are two very lucky (and well connected) welfare recipients – lucky not to be among the 28 million Americans that go without jobs or are forced into part-time work. What’s even more ridiculous is what I call the A-Rod Defense: baseball players make a lot of money so we shouldn’t get bent out of shape when financial executives make a lot too. That’s the American way. Bad example. Baseball teams also receive taxpayer welfare. Their stadiums often are blessed with enormous tax breaks and subsidies. And the league is exempt from anti-trust provisions. Baseball is a legally authorized oligopoly–no surprise, then, that the participants have a lot of money to play with. But ask yourself this: How many people can play baseball like the best major leaguers? How many equally good players are lurking in the minor leagues who could do what A-Rod does with or without steroids? One? Two? None? Then ask yourself, how many people on Wall Street could step in to replace Blankfein and Dimon? One hundred? one thousand? ten thousand? Couldn’t thousands of other executives also have presided over the worst crash since the Great Depression? And here’s one more fact. Baseball players, whether they are worth it or not, don’t crash our economy. They don’t create vast casinos based on fantasy finance instruments that turn toxic. They don’t suck up 35 percent of all corporate profits. They don’t create losses that induce unemployment on millions of Americans. But our Wall Street executives did all that and more. They are in the job killing Hall of Fame. Blankfein and Dimon salaries are a diversion from the bigger story: Wall Street has awarded itself a record bonus pool of $150 billion – a pool that would be zero were it not for our bailouts. They rewarded themselves during the worst financial year since the Great Depression. How did we let that happen? That’s what FDR would be screaming about, not defending. But while we’re comparing Obama to FDR, we should also compare ourselves to the kind of activity that sparked the New Deal. Today we see no worker upsurge, no progressive revival, no mass movement in the streets among the unemployed and dispossessed like we witnessed in the 1930s. Obama faces no serious progressive pressure. Instead the Tea Party has emerged to grab all of the populist energy. A right-wing populist movement was to be expected. FDR saw Father Coughlin, the radio preacher, galvanize a powerful populist force based on hatred of Jews and Wall Street. Huey Long gave Roosevelt fits with his “Everyman a King” demagoguery. But most importantly, these reactionary forces were more than balanced out by the labor movement that strengthened as workers poured into unions and into the streets. What have we today? Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. What we don’t have is a serious challenge from the progressive side of the spectrum. We don’t have an alternative vision to the billionaire bailout society. We don’t have a clear agenda to push onto Obama. And we sure as hell don’t have a mass movement that could enforce it. We can moan all we want about Obama’s shortcomings, the mistakes his Administration has made and his inability to take on Wall Street. But we haven’t exactly applied a lot of heat. A million people on the mall demanding “Jobs Now” along with serious Wall Street reforms might help. A million people showing up repeatedly might actually get the job done. Why have we forgotten how to build a mass movement just as the Tea Party shows that it can be done? The free market on Wall Street is dead and has been for a long time. It’s been replaced by a billionaire bailout society that will provide decades of chronic unemployment and on-going bailouts for the super-rich. It’s a damn shame Obama can’t deal with it. It’s a bigger shame that we won’t force him too. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009.

Read the full article →

House Democrat John Murtha Dies at Age 77 After Complications From Surgery

February 8, 2010

By Laurence Arnold Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) — John Murtha , a former Marine drill instructor turned congressman who unapologetically wielded his power to benefit his Pennsylvania district, died today. He was 77. Murtha, a Democrat, died of complications after undergoing gallbladder surgery in late January in a hospital in Arlington, Virginia. During 36 years in the House, the Vietnam veteran from Johnstown, Pennsylvania, rose to chairman of the subcommittee that approves defense spending. That perch gave him a platform to exert his knowledge and strong beliefs about the proper use of the U.S. military. In November 2005, citing increasing attacks on Americans, he called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a military engagement he had voted for in 2002. He was an ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. “It’s the passing of a major political figure who was close to the speaker and always involved in Democratic legislation,” said Stuart Rothenberg , an independent political analyst based in Washington. Rothenberg called Murtha a major force in “forming American politics in jobs and spending.” Representative Norm Dicks , Democrat from Washington state, the senior most member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee after Murtha, would be the “one most likely to succeed,” George Behan, a spokesman for Dicks, said in an interview. The House Appropriations committee headed by Representative Dave Obey , Democrat of Wisconsin, would make the final decision, Behan said. User of Earmarks Murtha’s seat on the Appropriations Committee enabled him to become one of Congress’s most adept users of the earmark process to send money to specific projects back home. The John Murtha Johnston-Cambria County Airport was among the more visible results of his taxpayer-funded largess. Murtha steered an estimated $150 million in federal funds to the airport, the Washington Post reported in 2009. Murtha’s town also became a popular place for defense contractors, which received millions in earmarks through the congressman. Some of those firms donated to Murtha’s campaign and gave jobs to his allies, the Post reported, creating a web of connections that drew the attention of federal prosecutors. Searches were carried out in January and February of 2009 at the offices of a Virginia lobbying firm and a Pennsylvania- based defense contractor that had benefited from Murtha’s earmarks. Abscam Investigation Earlier in his career, he was investigated — though not prosecuted — in the Abscam bribery scandal that led to the convictions of seven other lawmakers in the 1980s. Murtha’s use of earmarks and ties to lobbyists made him a top target of good-government groups. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington labeled him one of the “most corrupt” members of Congress. Murtha gave no ground. “If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district,” he told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in March 2009. “My job as a member of Congress is to make sure that we take care of what we see is necessary.” As his congressional Web site put it, Murtha “has worked hard to bring tens of thousands of family-sustaining jobs to western Pennsylvania,” which had suffered “the widespread loss of coal and steel jobs that were the lifeblood of the area.” After Democrats won a majority of seats in the House in November 2006, Murtha ran for the No. 2 leadership post, majority leader, and was supported by Pelosi, the incoming House speaker. Murtha, who may have lost votes due to the allegations about his ethics, was defeated by Steny Hoyer of Maryland. ‘Racist Area’ Murtha won his 18th full term in 2008 even after seeming to insult his district by calling it “a racist area” where some voters might be reluctant to vote for Barack Obama . He later apologized. His committee was preparing to take up the latest war spending bill, which would fund the Obama administration’s troop buildup in Afghanistan. Murtha had expressed skepticism, saying in December he was “not sure that there’s a threat to our national security” in Afghanistan because al-Qaeda “can go any place — they don’t have to be in Afghanistan.” Murtha’s death likely creates another competitive race as Republicans try to retake the House in November. His district gave 49 percent of its vote to Obama in 2008 and 49 percent to Republican presidential nominee John McCain . John Patrick Murtha was born on June 17, 1932, in New Martinsville, West Virginia, and graduated from high school in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Drill Instructor He left Washington and Jefferson College in Washington, Pennsylvania, in 1952 to join the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War, serving until 1955 and becoming a drill instructor at Parris Island. In his second tour of active duty, in 1966 and 1967, he served in Vietnam as a Marine intelligence officer. His honors included a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. He was a reservist from 1952 to 1990 and retired from the Marine reserves as a colonel. He earned a degree in economics from the University of Pittsburgh in 1962. He began his political career as a member of Pennsylvania’s legislature from 1969 to 1974. The death of U.S. Representative John P. Saylor, a Republican, in 1973 forced a special election in February 1974 that was viewed as a referendum on the unpopular Republican president, Richard Nixon , then beset by problems including inflation and the emerging Watergate scandal. Backed by organized labor, Murtha won by just a few hundred votes. ‘Tip’ O’Neill House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill took a liking to Murtha and named him to the powerful Appropriations Committee. He became chairman of the defense subcommittee in 1989. Murtha was often called upon by congressional leaders and presidents to travel overseas to assess security challenges or monitor elections. In 1982, O’Neill sent Murtha to Beirut to review President Ronald Reagan’s decision to deploy U.S. Marines there as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. Murtha concluded the American troops were too vulnerable. “I’d like to get them out of here as soon as possible,” he told reporters. In 1992, he was a leading congressional critic of President George H.W. Bush’s decision to send U.S. troops to Somalia on a humanitarian mission. “The danger is we won’t be able to get them out,” Murtha warned. Murtha’s congressional Web site said of his role in the Somalia debate: “Although his advice was not heeded, history would prove him right.” Murtha and his wife, Joyce, had three children. To contact the reporter on this story: Laurence Arnold in Washington at larnold4@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

House Democrat John Murtha Dies at Age 77 After Complications From Surgery

February 8, 2010

By Laurence Arnold Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) — John Murtha , a former Marine drill instructor turned congressman who unapologetically wielded his power to benefit his Pennsylvania district, died today. He was 77. Murtha, a Democrat, died of complications after undergoing gallbladder surgery in late January in a hospital in Arlington, Virginia. During 36 years in the House, the Vietnam veteran from Johnstown, Pennsylvania, rose to chairman of the subcommittee that approves defense spending. That perch gave him a platform to exert his knowledge and strong beliefs about the proper use of the U.S. military. In November 2005, citing increasing attacks on Americans, he called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a military engagement he had voted for in 2002. He was an ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. “It’s the passing of a major political figure who was close to the speaker and always involved in Democratic legislation,” said Stuart Rothenberg , an independent political analyst based in Washington. Rothenberg called Murtha a major force in “forming American politics in jobs and spending.” Representative Norm Dicks , Democrat from Washington state, the senior most member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee after Murtha, would be the “one most likely to succeed,” George Behan, a spokesman for Dicks, said in an interview. The House Appropriations committee headed by Representative Dave Obey , Democrat of Wisconsin, would make the final decision, Behan said. User of Earmarks Murtha’s seat on the Appropriations Committee enabled him to become one of Congress’s most adept users of the earmark process to send money to specific projects back home. The John Murtha Johnston-Cambria County Airport was among the more visible results of his taxpayer-funded largess. Murtha steered an estimated $150 million in federal funds to the airport, the Washington Post reported in 2009. Murtha’s town also became a popular place for defense contractors, which received millions in earmarks through the congressman. Some of those firms donated to Murtha’s campaign and gave jobs to his allies, the Post reported, creating a web of connections that drew the attention of federal prosecutors. Searches were carried out in January and February of 2009 at the offices of a Virginia lobbying firm and a Pennsylvania- based defense contractor that had benefited from Murtha’s earmarks. Abscam Investigation Earlier in his career, he was investigated — though not prosecuted — in the Abscam bribery scandal that led to the convictions of seven other lawmakers in the 1980s. Murtha’s use of earmarks and ties to lobbyists made him a top target of good-government groups. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington labeled him one of the “most corrupt” members of Congress. Murtha gave no ground. “If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district,” he told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in March 2009. “My job as a member of Congress is to make sure that we take care of what we see is necessary.” As his congressional Web site put it, Murtha “has worked hard to bring tens of thousands of family-sustaining jobs to western Pennsylvania,” which had suffered “the widespread loss of coal and steel jobs that were the lifeblood of the area.” After Democrats won a majority of seats in the House in November 2006, Murtha ran for the No. 2 leadership post, majority leader, and was supported by Pelosi, the incoming House speaker. Murtha, who may have lost votes due to the allegations about his ethics, was defeated by Steny Hoyer of Maryland. ‘Racist Area’ Murtha won his 18th full term in 2008 even after seeming to insult his district by calling it “a racist area” where some voters might be reluctant to vote for Barack Obama . He later apologized. His committee was preparing to take up the latest war spending bill, which would fund the Obama administration’s troop buildup in Afghanistan. Murtha had expressed skepticism, saying in December he was “not sure that there’s a threat to our national security” in Afghanistan because al-Qaeda “can go any place — they don’t have to be in Afghanistan.” Murtha’s death likely creates another competitive race as Republicans try to retake the House in November. His district gave 49 percent of its vote to Obama in 2008 and 49 percent to Republican presidential nominee John McCain . John Patrick Murtha was born on June 17, 1932, in New Martinsville, West Virginia, and graduated from high school in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Drill Instructor He left Washington and Jefferson College in Washington, Pennsylvania, in 1952 to join the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War, serving until 1955 and becoming a drill instructor at Parris Island. In his second tour of active duty, in 1966 and 1967, he served in Vietnam as a Marine intelligence officer. His honors included a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. He was a reservist from 1952 to 1990 and retired from the Marine reserves as a colonel. He earned a degree in economics from the University of Pittsburgh in 1962. He began his political career as a member of Pennsylvania’s legislature from 1969 to 1974. The death of U.S. Representative John P. Saylor, a Republican, in 1973 forced a special election in February 1974 that was viewed as a referendum on the unpopular Republican president, Richard Nixon , then beset by problems including inflation and the emerging Watergate scandal. Backed by organized labor, Murtha won by just a few hundred votes. ‘Tip’ O’Neill House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill took a liking to Murtha and named him to the powerful Appropriations Committee. He became chairman of the defense subcommittee in 1989. Murtha was often called upon by congressional leaders and presidents to travel overseas to assess security challenges or monitor elections. In 1982, O’Neill sent Murtha to Beirut to review President Ronald Reagan’s decision to deploy U.S. Marines there as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. Murtha concluded the American troops were too vulnerable. “I’d like to get them out of here as soon as possible,” he told reporters. In 1992, he was a leading congressional critic of President George H.W. Bush’s decision to send U.S. troops to Somalia on a humanitarian mission. “The danger is we won’t be able to get them out,” Murtha warned. Murtha’s congressional Web site said of his role in the Somalia debate: “Although his advice was not heeded, history would prove him right.” Murtha and his wife, Joyce, had three children. To contact the reporter on this story: Laurence Arnold in Washington at larnold4@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky: Government Bailout Has Increased Risk Of Economic Crisis

January 31, 2010

WASHINGTON — The government’s response to the financial meltdown has made it more likely the United States will face a deeper crisis in the future, an independent watchdog at the Treasury Department warned. The problems that led to the last crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have grown worse, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the trouble asset relief program, or TARP. The quarterly report to Congress was released Sunday. “Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car,” Barofsky wrote. Since Congress passed $700 billion financial bailout, the remaining institutions considered “too big to fail” have grown larger and failed to restrain the lavish pay for their executives, Barofsky wrote. He said the banks still have an incentive to take on risk because they know the government will save them rather than bring down the financial system. Barofsky also said his office is investigating 77 cases of possible criminal and civil fraud, including crimes of tax evasion, insider trading, mortgage lending and payment collection, false statements and public corruption. One case concerns apparent self-dealing by one of the private fund managers Treasury picked to buy bad assets from banks at discounted prices. A portfolio manager at the firm apparently sold a bond out of a private fund, then repurchased it at a higher price for a government-backed fund. A rating agency had just downgraded the bond, so it likely was worth less, not more, when the government fund bought it. The company is not being named pending the outcome of Barofsky’s investigation. Barofsky renewed a call for Treasury to enact clearer walls so that such apparent conflicts are less likely. Treasury said it welcomed Barofsky’s oversight but resisted the call to erect new barriers against conflicts of interest. The new rules “would be detrimental to the program,” Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in a statement. The existing compliance rules “are a rigorous and effective method of protecting taxpayers,” she said. Much of Barofsky’s report focused on the government’s growing role in the housing market, which he said has increased the risk of another housing bubble. Over the past year, the federal government has spent hundreds of billions propping up the housing market. About 90 percent of home loans are backed by government controlled entities, mainly Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration. The Federal Reserve is spending $1.25 trillion to hold down mortgage rates, and millions of homeowners have refinanced at lower rates. “The government has stepped in where the private players have gone away,” Barofsky said in an interview. “If we take government resources and replace that market without addressing the serious (underlying) concerns, there really is a risk of” artificially pushing up home prices in the coming years. The report warned that these supports mean the government “has done more than simply support the mortgage market, in many ways it has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor.” Barofsky’s report echoed concerns raised by housing experts in recent months, as home sales and prices rebounded. They warn that the primary reason for the turnaround last year has been billions of dollars in federal spending to lower mortgage rates and prop up demand. Once that spigot of cash is turned off, they caution, the market will be vulnerable to a dramatic turn for the worse. Daniel Alpert, managing partner of investment bank Westwood Capital, wrote in a report that national home prices are bound to fall 8 to 10 percent below the lows of last spring. “The lion’s share of the remaining decline will occur in markets that saw sizable bubbles but have not yet retrenched,” he wrote. Officials from the Obama administration counter that massive federal intervention has helped the housing market stabilize and prevented more dire consequences. Barofsky’s report also disclosed that, while the Obama administration has pledged to spend $75 billion to prevent foreclosures, only a tiny fraction – just over $15 million – has been spent so far. Under the Making Home Affordable program, only about 66,500 borrowers, or 7 percent of those who signed up, had completed the process as of December. He said the key to preventing future crises is to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, create and improve loan underwriting and supervision of banks. He stopped short of endorsing specific proposals for overhauling financial regulation, but said many of the proposals would go far to improving the system.

Read the full article →

The Best New IRS Tax Deductions And Credits

January 19, 2010

“Depending on their individual situation, there could be good news and there could be bad news,” said Amy McAnarney, executive director of the Tax Institute at H&R Block. Some things affect all taxpayers. The personal exemption, for example, has increased, to $3,650 each for the taxpayer and dependents, up $150 from 2008. And tax brackets have been adjusted upward by about 5 percent since 2008, said Greg Rosica, tax partner at Ernst & Young and a contributing author to the “Ernst & Young Tax Guide 2010.” That means you might not jump to a higher tax bracket if you earned more. “Certainly there are benefits there for all taxpayers,” said Rosica. “There are ones that span the entire income spectrum out there.” Others revisions are more likely to affect low- and moderate-income workers. Income limits for the earned income tax credit have been raised and there’s a new category – families with three or more children. The Internal Revenue Service says one in six taxpayers claim the credit. Still other changes affect those at higher income levels. The exemption for the alternative minimum tax has been increased once again, this time to $70,950 for joint returns and $46,700 for individuals. If your income is higher than these amounts, you could be subject to the AMT tax. These changes are among those that happen every year, to keep taxes in line with inflation. But there are a host of other revisions, new for 2009, that will make filing your tax return this year a little more complicated. For one thing, the standard deduction for taxpayers who don’t itemize has become a little less standard. The standard deduction itself has increased, to $11,400 for married couples filing jointly, $5,700 for individuals and $8,350 for heads of household. As before, it is even bigger if you are blind or 65 or over. But new this year, you can take more of a standard deduction if you paid state or local real estate taxes, bought a new car and paid sales or excise taxes and met the income limits, or were a victim of a federally declared disaster. If you choose to increase your standard deduction by one or more of these items, you’ll have to file a new form Schedule L. Otherwise, you can just enter the standard deduction on Form 1040. The three deductions – for state or local real estate taxes, sales or excise taxes on new car purchases or net disaster losses – also can be taken by people who itemize. There are expanded tax credits for home purchases and education. And a tax credit for making your home more energy efficient has been reinstated. Tax experts caution people to be careful that they’re claiming every deduction and credit to which they’re entitled. A credit reduces the amount of tax you owe; a deduction reduces the income on which taxes are assessed. You’re likely already receiving the benefit of the Making Work Pay credit under the stimulus bill that Congress passed last year. However, you may have to pay a portion back if you’re a married couple and both spouses work, or if you have more than one job. If you’re a low- or moderate-income worker, you might have some money due to you. A new form, Schedule M, will have to be filed to claim the credit. “Each year carries with it changes in the tax law. It’s important that people understand what has changed in their personal situation,” Rosica said. Did you get married or have a baby? Did you buy or sell stock? Did you inherit money, property or other goods? Jeff Schnepper, MSN Money tax expert, recommends that people sit down with a tax professional at least once every three years to review their life changes and financial situation. “First of all, it’s deductible,” he said. “Second of all, if you’re not a professional, you don’t know the minutiae. You don’t know all the things you can do right and you don’t know all the things you’re about to do wrong.” Experts point to common mistakes that people make, which could delay a refund. According to the Ernst & Young tax guide, some of these errors are mathematical. Others involve omission – like failing to include your Social Security number or those of your dependents. Make sure you pick the correct filing status – head of household or surviving spouse vs. single, for example. And don’t forget to sign your return. Last year, the IRS received more than 141 million tax returns. Of those, about 70 percent were filed electronically. More than 110 million filers were due refunds, averaging $2,753 each. The IRS encourages people to file electronically, saying it reduces errors and enables people to get their refunds more quickly. People who file electronically and use direct deposit can get their refunds as soon as 10 days after they file. This year, the agency estimates that it will take taxpayers using form 1040 an average 21.4 hours to complete their taxes. That includes record keeping, tax planning, and completing and filing the return. The more complicated your return, the more time it will take to complete it. One major thing that taxpayers will find different this year is the homebuyer tax credit. “It’s already gone through three iterations,” said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for CCH’s tax and accounting group. In 2008, the credit was actually an interest-free, long-term loan. For people who purchased a home in 2009, the credit is a true credit – it only has to be paid back if you stop using the home as your principal residence within three years of purchase. The credit is $8,000 for first-time homebuyers, defined as those who haven’t owned a home in the last three years. Congress also added a credit for long-time homeowners who purchase a new principal residence – $6,500. To qualify, a homebuyer would have had to live at least five years in a previously owned home. There are income limitations for both. There also is an expanded credit for college education. The new American opportunity credit provides a maximum annual credit of $2,500 per student for each of the first four years of college. The Hope credit that the new credit replaces temporarily covered only the first two years and for most people was smaller. To be eligible, taxpayers would have to pay $4,000 or more in tuition, fees and course materials. The credit, which phases out at higher incomes, is 40 percent refundable. “This means that even people who owe no tax can get an annual payment of the credit up to $1,000 for each eligible student,” the IRS said. What about those students who take more than four years to finish college? “If you’re in your fifth year, you’re out of luck,” Luscombe said. However, there is another credit – the lifetime learning credit – that may be available for students in their fifth or sixth year of college, or in graduate school. Other changes include the reinstatement of the credit for making your home more energy efficient. The maximum credit has increased, to $1,500 for $5,000 in expenditures on things like insulation, storm windows or an energy efficient furnace. For people who lost jobs, the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits is not taxable. To benefit from most of the tax breaks, you would have had to take action before the end of 2009. But there are a couple of exceptions. You still might be able to claim the homebuyer credit if you have a signed contract by April 30. And, if at the end of the day you find you owe the IRS money or want a bigger refund, you may be able to contribute to an individual retirement account until April 15 and take a deduction on your 2009 taxes. If you’re covered by a plan at work, you may be able to deduct a contribution of $5,000 – $6,000 if you’re at least 50 – if your modified adjusted gross income is less than $65,000 if you’re filing as an individual, or $109,000 if you’re married filing jointly.

Read the full article →

Geithner Says He’s `Confident’ Government’s AIG Rescue Was Correct Action

January 14, 2010

By Timothy R. Homan Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he’s confident the government took the appropriate steps in rescuing American International Group Inc. , though the need to do so was “deeply offensive” to him. “It was necessary to do,” Geithner said in an interview today on CNBC. “If we could have done it differently, we would have done it differently, but this was the best way to do it.” He also said he wasn’t involved in e-mails between the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and AIG in which the central bank in December 2008 asked the New York-based insurer to limit disclosure of how the government’s money would be used. Geithner was president of the New York Fed until January 2009, and the New York Fed has said he recused himself from such deliberations starting in late-November of 2008 after President Barack Obama picked him to be Treasury secretary until he left the central bank. “I haven’t looked at those memos actually; I wasn’t involved in that decision,” Geithner said. “I do think the Fed did disclose all of that information subsequently. It’s important that the American people see all of this information.” Geithner plans to testify Jan. 27 before a House panel investigating why lawyers for the New York Fed asked AIG not to disclose payments to counterparties, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., to settle derivative contracts swaps in a December 2008 regulatory filing. Subpoenaed The panel yesterday subpoenaed Geithner’s telephone logs, e-mails and meeting notes about the New York Fed’s rescue of AIG. The New York Fed was directed by the panel to produce the documents by Jan. 19, panel chairman Edolphus Towns , a New York Democrat, said yesterday in a statement. The AIG bailout, valued at $182.3 billion, was done in a way that was “not just the least cost for the taxpayer, but helped to avoid much, much more damage,” Geithner said. Paying 100 cents on the dollar to reimburse banks fully was “absolutely” the right decision, Geithner said. “I’m personally very confident it was the right thing to do and we did it in the best way possible for the American people,” he said. To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at thoman1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Obama Bank Levy Would Target Up to 50 of the Biggest U.S. Financial Firms

January 14, 2010

By Julianna Goldman Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) — As many as 50 financial firms with assets greater than $50 billion each would be hit by a levy President Barack Obama will announce today to help recoup taxpayer bailout money and trim the federal budget deficit , an administration official said. The levy based on bank liabilities would be imposed starting June 30 and the administration estimates it will raise $90 billion over a minimum of 10 years, said the official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity. Obama plans to outline the proposal late this morning at the White House and a more detailed plan will be included in the budget message he’s due to send Congress next month. The announcement comes as public anger is rising over the taxpayer bailouts of the financial and auto industries, Wall Street bonuses and the deficit, which hit $1.4 trillion last year. Even before it was formally released, the proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee drew criticism from the industry. “Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea,” JPMorgan Chase & Co . Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon , 53, said after testifying yesterday at a hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in Washington. “All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers.” The fee targets the country’s biggest financial institutions and aims to recoup losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which the Treasury Department now estimates to cost $117 billion, the administration official said. Aid Recipients Companies including JPMorgan, Citigroup Inc ., Wells Fargo & Co. , Bank of America Corp ., Goldman Sachs Group Inc . and Morgan Stanley were among the biggest beneficiaries of the government’s initial purchases in October 2008 of preferred stock and warrants with money from the $700 billion TARP fund. All but Citigroup have repaid the money, according to a Treasury Department report released yesterday. Covered institutions include bank holding companies, thrift holding companies, insurance companies with such entities and broker-dealers. More broadly, the official said that firms covered under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s temporary loan guarantee program would be subject to the fee. The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program was established to back senior unsecured bank debt and boost liquidity in the banking system. Some companies that didn’t receive TARP funds would face the fee, the official said. The administration is using the argument that that every major financial firm in the U.S. is a beneficiary of government steps to bolster the industry. ‘Limit Economic Recovery’ “The tax will penalize the firms who repaid TARP with interest and those who never even accepted it to begin with,” said Scott Talbott , senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents large banks. “It will decrease the availability of loans and limit economic recovery.” The fee would be approximately 15 basis points, or 0.15 percent, of covered liabilities, or total assets minus tier one capital — common stock, disclosed reserves, retained earnings – - as well as FDIC-insured deposits for banks or insurance policy reserves for insurance companies, the official said. Deposits covered by the FDIC and insurance policy reserves are being exempted to avoid placing a double fee on institutions, the official said. General Motors Co . and Chrysler Group LLC , which also got government aid, would be exempt, as would smaller banks. The levy also won’t be assessed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-supported companies seized by regulators in 2008. The official said the administration concluded hitting Fannie and Freddie with the fee wouldn’t be in taxpayers’ interest. 35 U.S. Companies The fee will apply to roughly 35 U.S. companies and up to 15 U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, the official said. While additional details are still being worked out, the fee is expected to vary by year, growing slightly over the 10- year period, the official said. The administration plans to consult with members of Congress and outside experts before it is released in the budget. The official also said that Congress would be able to amend the fee in the future based on its own determinations. The administration expects that most institutions won’t pass on the cost to consumers because they would be at a competitive disadvantage with banks that aren’t subject to the fee, the official said. The plan won support from key Democrats even before details were released. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , a Massachusetts Democrat, said he was in favor of such a fee. Incentive to Lend Frank said Republicans will suffer if they echo warnings from the banks that taxes or fees would hurt banking activity. “The answer is yes, good,” he said. “If they were not able to make so much on overdraft fees, and credit cards and derivatives and some of these manipulations, then they might have more incentive to lend.” Michigan Representative David Camp , the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said while he and other Republicans find bonuses being paid by banks that got bailouts “irresponsible” and “outrageous,” they are concerned that taxing banks will hurt lending, and thus job creation. Still, he said that with lawmakers up for re-election in November, voter anger at banks will be tough to ignore. “It’s going to be a tough bill politically to oppose,” he said. To contact the reporter on this story: Julianna Goldman in Washington at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Obama To Push Tax On Being ‘Too Big To Fail’

January 13, 2010

President Obama will unveil on Thursday a proposed levy on the nation’s biggest financial firms structured not just to repay taxpayers for the bank bailout, but to recoup some of the public subsidy that “too big to fail” banks have enjoyed on account of their implicit government backstop, a senior administration official tells the Huffington Post. This would be by far the government’s most assertive step in starting to claw back some of the enormous profits the TBTF banks have reaped, first as a result of the bailout and then from the implicit guarantee that the government would back up their debt of major banks if they ever faced bankruptcy. Because these banks effectively have the full backing of the American government, they are able to borrow at much lower rates than banks that have to borrow based on their own credit-worthiness. The administration official tells HuffPost that the planned tax would be imposed in a way that targets firms’ riskiest activities, such as proprietary trading. It would be crafted in a way that doesn’t affect a financial company’s retail banking, so that the cost theoretically would not be passed on to retail customers — but it wasn’t clear exactly how that would work. “We want to put a price on the riskiest part of the bank,” the official said, speaking of highly-leveraged Wall Street trading, rather than Main Street lending. And, the official said: “They get a government backstop for free. We want to put a price on what the guarantee is.” The tax would be included in the president’s upcoming budget, with the goal of implementing it for 10 years, starting next year. But many details have yet to be filled in and the reaction from Congress is uncertain. The administration currently estimates that taxpayers will ultimately lose $120 billion from TARP, and that is the amount banks would have to repay over the life of this tax. While independent experts outside the Obama administration question that figure — in August it was estimated at $341 billion, and a few weeks ago at $141 billion — sources inside the administration say that the expected loss will probably be much lower. “As the banking industry recovered, the president and the economic team felt it was important to discuss ways to recoup every dime for the American people more quickly than the law required,” another administration official said, referencing the timeline sketched out by Congress when it authorized the Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion in taxpayer funds to restart the country’s financial system. The implicit — some say explicit — government guarantee enjoyed by TBTF banks is one of the hidden public subsidies conferred by the government’s intervention in the financial markets. It is rarely discussed when calculating the true cost to the taxpayers. In a September study , Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and a colleague calculated that since the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 and the ensuing actions that enshrined TBTF, the 18 largest bank holding companies enjoyed significantly lower borrowing costs than smaller banks. He calculated the taxpayer-funded subsidy at $34.1 billion a year. The implicit government guarantee is also why investors are betting that firms like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase will never default on their debt. The cost of insuring the debt of JPMorgan Chase against restructuring or default, for example, is next to nothing, about 0.44 percent, according to CMA Datavision. The cost for the state of California, the world’s eighth-largest economy, is about six times higher. In a December report , the Elizabeth Warren-led government commission created to keep tabs on the bailout concluded: “It is no doubt true that the perception of an implicit guarantee has grown in the wake of the government response to the crisis.” The administration’s sudden interest in taxing banks is at least in part a proactive PR response to the popular outrage expected to accompany news in the coming days of multimillion dollar bonuses being showered on the executives of banks that most likely wouldn’t have survived without a very expensive, taxpayer-funded rescue effort. But some critics who feel the administration’s policies on bailouts and financial reform have been too solicitous of big banks had a positive reaction to the administration’s new proposal. “This is a good principle and an important step,” Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, wrote in an e-mail. But, he added: “There is no logic that says it should be temporary. It should last as long as are there TBTF institutions, which is forever (in the plans of the administration).” Johnson also argues that the administration’s $120 billion tally for TARP losses is “low ball.” TARP is a direct cost, he said. But the country needed a fiscal stimulus to restart the economy, which “was only needed because of what the banks did. They should pay for that also,” he said. “There is no logic that says: reimburse us for TARP but the rest is on the house.” CEPR’s Baker said that while the proposal is late in coming, “it’s better late than never.” It’s also what Cornelius K. Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University and a former lawyer at the Federal Reserve, called for more than 15 months ago in an op-ed for Reuters . “This would cause banks to ‘right-size,’” Hurley said in an interview Tuesday. If banks want to continue enjoying their TBTF status, then they’d simply pay taxpayers for the benefit. If not, they’d shrink. “It would be self-enforcing,” he said. TBTF banks should pay it every year, he said. Influential Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, on the PBS Newshour Tuesday night, explained that the big banks “got much more benefit from the government than just the TARP money. The Federal Reserve injected trillions of dollars into the economy. “The federal government went to extraordinary lengths to rescue the economy from the crisis which was largely caused by the actions of these banks. And, so, all of that money, the extra money which the government spends, the reduced tax revenue which the government is seeing, thanks to the enormous unemployment across the country, the huge fiscal deficit which has resulted from the biggest recession since the Great Depression, this is an enormous sum of money. “And the only section of the economy which is really making windfall profits right now is the banking industry. And, so, it makes sense to tax them higher to help cover that gap.” He added: “The cost to the government of banking industry failure during the credit boom is much greater than just the $700 billion of TARP. It was trillions of dollars in total. And the banks, no matter how big this tax is, are only ever going to pay back a tiny fraction of that.” Investor and blogger Barry Ritholtz writes Wednesday morning that the new tax “could potentially do more than reduce the deficit — if it goes far enough, it could actually solve the TBTF problem. Exempt small regional banks with under $25 billion in deposits. Make the tax progressive so it become increasingly larger as deposits become greater. $25-$50 billion in deposits is one fee (Let’s say 0.1%, that’s $25 million on $25 billion in assets). Have it scale to the point where its punitive — 1% on a trillion dollars in deposits. “The goal here isn’t to raise money — it’s to force the TBTF banks to become smaller — to break up the Citigroups and the Bank of Americas. This tax will restore competition to the banking industry.” Questions still remain. Rob Johnson, director of financial reform at the Roosevelt Institute and a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, wonders how the administration is going to measure the subsidy and subsequent payment to taxpayers. What if, for example, a bank gets a $4 billion benefit but only has to pay a $1 billion tax? And Johnson, a former chief economist for the Senate Banking Committee, asks: “How are they going to get this tax passed if they can’t even get financial reform?” Some critics, however, have other concerns. William K. Black, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a former senior federal regulator during the savings-and-loan crisis, argues that the because of spurious accounting rules adopted last year, banks aren’t properly recognizing their losses, and are in fact largely insolvent. He said now is the wrong time to be taking money out of the banking system because banks need it to guard against eroding assets like residential and commercial mortgages. “We are blessing fictional numbers and believing our own lies,” Black said. “Taking capital out of the system…it’s a charade.” Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter !

Read the full article →

Dylan Ratigan: The Case Against Geithner

January 11, 2010

As we sit here today, Wall Street continues to exploit a policy of government-sponsored giveaways and secrecy to pay themselves billions. Record-setting bonuses due to banks like Goldman Sachs as early next week. Yet instead of acting as our cop, Secretary Tim Geithner has become central to what may be a cover-up of the greatest theft in U.S. history. Here is the evidence. COUNT 1 : The AIG Emails: Recently-released emails show Geithner’s New York Federal Reserve Bank directing AIG to keep details of the 100-cents-on-the-dollar bailout secret in 2008 — A reversal of the traditional role of government, which is to force companies to become more transparent, not less. A Treasury Spokeswoman says: “Secretary Geithner played no role in these decisions and indeed, by November 24, he was recused from working on issues involving specific companies, including AIG.” Friday, the White House also defended the Treasury Secretary: Gibbs: These decisions did not rise to his level at the fed. CNN’s Ed Henry: How do you know that he wasn’t involved? He was the leader of the New York Fed. Gibbs: Right, but he wasn’t on the emails that have been talked about and wasn’t party to the decision that was being made. He wasn’t party to a decision to hide $62 billion dollar payouts to firms that became insolvent during his 5-year watch at the New York Fed? Congressman Darrell Issa speculates that maybe Geithner wasn’t on the emails in question because his people felt so strongly they already knew their boss’s intentions, they didn’t feel the need to bother him with the details. COUNT 2 : He wasn’t even a regulator! In Geithner’s own words during confirmation hearings in March: “First of all, I’ve never been a regulator…I’m not a regulator.” According to the New York fed bank’s website, that was your job!! And I quote from the Fed’s website : “As part of our core mission, we supervise and regulate financial institutions in the Second District.” That district of course is the epicenter for bailed out banks and billion dollar bonuses. Count 3 : ” The Christmas Eve Taxpayer Massacre .” As you were wrapping those last presents, Geithner’s Treasury Department lifted the 400-billion dollar cap on taxpayer responsibility for potential losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . The new cap? Unlimited taxpayer funds! Interesting timing… Christmas eve, Tim? Still no word on recovering the hundreds of millions paid to the CEOs who created this mess. COUNT 4 : He’s too cozy with certain banks. Remember those call logs when he first started… 80 contacts with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and CitiGroup CEOs in just 7 months! But Bank of America’s CEO only got three calls. Apparently Bank of America is not one of Geithner’s favorites, especially when you consider that there are still many unanswered questions about Tim Geithner’s role in threatening to fire Bank of America management if they didn’t go through with a deal to buy Merrill lynch. COUNT 5 : TARP Special Investigator Neil Barofsky’s report says Geithner’s New York Fed overpaid the big banks through AIG by billions of dollars. Geithner says it had to be done. Maybe so, maybe not, but this takes us to our final point. Since then, the Treasury Secretary has yet to really prove whose side he’s on — the Wall Street big wigs or the American taxpayer? Here’s the litmus test: Mr. Geithner, show us the past ten years of AIG emails or step down so that we can get somebody who will. A crime has been committed against the American taxpayer and right now you are standing at the door of the crime scene refusing to let anyone in. Show us you’re not involved Mr. Geithner, prove the white house correct in defending you. All we are asking for is the transparency promised by the President you serve.

Read the full article →

Obama Seeking Ways to Recoup Bank-Bailout Funds for Taxpayers, Gibbs Says

January 11, 2010

By Hans Nichols Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s budget, set for release in the next several weeks, likely will include provisions to ensure that the taxpayer money put into bailing out the financial system is repaid, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Gibbs declined to specifically address a report this morning in Politico that the administration was looking at imposing fees on financial institutions. “The president has talked on a number of occasions about ensuring that the money that taxpayers have put up to rescue our financial system is paid back in full,” Gibbs said. To contact the reporter on this story: Hans Nichols in Washington at hnichols2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Huff TV: Arianna: Move Your Money And Make Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Smaller (VIDEO)

January 7, 2010

Arianna appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann Thursday to encourage Americans to fight back against Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail culture by moving their money from bailed out big banks to smaller, better-managed community banks. The effort is part of a project called Move Your Money . Arianna argued that it’s a simple way to stand up to banks and invest in institutions that are more likely to lend to small businesses. After taking billions in public bailout money, America’s four biggest banks have cut lending by $100 billion. Arianna also pointed out that by moving money to local banks, Americans will not be funding big banks efforts to fight financial reform “Instead of giving our money… to these big banks who are then hiring lobbyists to undermine fundamental financial reforms and also to engage again in the same derivative trading that was so risky when they did it back in 2008 and is just as risky now so the taxpayer is likely once again to bail out these too-big-to-fail banks. So, let’s make them smaller.” Visit MoveYourMoney.info to find a community bank near you. Click here for answers to frequently asked questions about how to move your money. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy

Read the full article →

IRS Property Liens Have Failed to Increase Tax Collections, Watchdog Says

January 6, 2010

By Ryan J. Donmoyer Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — IRS agents are relying too heavily on property liens to collect delinquent taxes, harming financially struggling Americans and circumventing taxpayer protections ordered by Congress in 1998, a report said. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson , an independent ombudsman within the Internal Revenue Service, said the agency increased use of liens without evidence they boost tax collections. She said a 475 percent increase in liens filed between 1999 and 2009 coincided with a 7.4 percent decrease in collections. Olson said the agency’s collection policies are the second most serious problem facing taxpayers behind a decline in telephone service. Three in 10 calls from taxpayers go unanswered, her report said. Liens are claims against property such as homes or cars that must be satisfied before assets can be sold. The IRS filed 966,000 liens last year, up from 168,000 in 1999, according to the report. “The IRS’s use of liens may not be furthering the agency’s revenue-collection objective,” Olson said in the 86-page report. She said her office studied 1.9 million accounts involving 277,000 taxpayers who had liens filed against them. “The IRS overstates the effectiveness of liens and sends a message to its employees that the quantity, not the quality, of liens is what matters,” Olson said. Declining Enforcement IRS enforcement actions declined in the years after Congress enacted new taxpayer protections in response to testimony from witnesses who complained in 1997 and 1998 of abusive treatment by IRS agents. The General Accounting Office, later renamed the Government Accountability Office, discredited much of that testimony after the law was passed. In a response included in the report, the IRS challenged Olson’s methodology and said Congress authorized the agency’s lien procedures. “The IRS believes we provide adequate guidance and training to our employees to allow them to make appropriate lien determinations,” the agency said. “Employees are expected to ensure liens are filed based on the most accurate information known at the time of filing.” IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge today defended the use of liens. “Since 2002, IRS research has completed independent, statistically valid studies that show liens are an effective collection tool,” she said in an e-mail statement. Managers’ Approval Olson said IRS procedures violate congressional intent by requiring agency managers’ approval to withdraw a lien. Congress intended that revenue officers seek approval to place one in the first place, she said. “IRS procedures have flipped Congress’s explicit presumptions,” she wrote. IRS lien procedures can exacerbate financial problems for taxpayers who often owe other creditors, Olson said. Once a tax debt is paid the IRS usually releases the lien, which leaves it on a person’s credit record for seven years, she said. That can hurt credit scores for people struggling to pay debts, she said. The agency instead could withdraw the lien, which would delete all references to it in credit reports, the taxpayer advocate said. Higher Interest Rates Allowing a lien notice to remain on taxpayers’ credit report can lead to “the likelihood that the taxpayer could face higher interest rates, denial of credit or employment, or even job loss,” Olson said. The IRS said in its response that it doesn’t report tax lien filings directly to credit agencies. The information typically is reported by third-party vendors, the agency said. Olson said the top problem facing taxpayers this year is a decline in IRS customer service in terms of answering taxpayer questions by phone. Taxpayers were able to reach a live IRS agent 83 percent of the time during the 2007 filing season, a percentage that declined to 77 percent in 2008 and 64 percent in 2009. This year, the IRS aims to answer 71.2 percent of calls, with the average caller waiting 12 minutes to reach an agent, she said. The IRS said it has “finite” resources and is doing the best it can to staff telephone lines. It said recent studies have shown it has accuracy and customer satisfaction rates above 90 percent. To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer at e-mail rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

GMAC May Post $10 Billion Annual Loss After Taxpayers Take Majority Stake

January 6, 2010

By Matt Townsend Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — GMAC Inc. , the auto and home lender that became majority-owned by the U.S. government last week after a third bailout, may post a loss of more than $10 billion for 2009 as more borrowers defaulted on mortgages. GMAC, based in Detroit, said yesterday that it expects to report a fourth-quarter loss of about $5 billion. Both the quarterly and annual losses would be records for the primary lender for General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC dealers. The company received a $3.79 billion infusion from the Treasury Department on Dec. 30. The U.S. earmarked about $13.5 billion for GMAC in two previous capital infusions and now controls a 56 percent stake. If the government converts preferred shares to common equity, it would own more than 70 percent of GMAC, the lender said during a conference call. “I think for the taxpayer it’s going to be a loss,” said Christopher Whalen , managing director of Torrance, California- based Institutional Risk Analytics. “Who is going to buy this? What is the compelling business model that wants us to have this company continue to exist?” The most recent bailout allowed the lender to contribute $2.7 billion of capital to its Residential Capital LLC unit, which had $2 billion in mortgage assets written down in preparation for a sale. GMAC said it considered several options for ResCap, including bankruptcy. It now expects to sell some of the mortgage assets of ResCap, which ranked among the nation’s biggest subprime home lenders in 2006. Nothing ‘Crazy’ “We’re not going to do anything crazy and give value away, but it’s an asset we’d like to figure out how to capitalize on its value,” Chief Executive Officer Michael Carpenter said while taking questions after an investor presentation yesterday. GMAC said the fourth-quarter loss stems in part from a previously disclosed $3.8 billion pretax charge tied to revaluing “higher-risk mortgage loans.” The company said it expects delinquencies to peak next year and home prices may hit bottom in the first quarter of 2011. The latest capital infusion and restructuring weren’t enough to stabilize ResCap and assure a return to profitability, according to Moody’s Investors Service. While the changes were positive, ResCap’s “liquidity position is tenuous, capital insufficient and franchise impaired,” Moody’s said in a statement on Dec. 31. To contact the reporter on this story: Matt Townsend in New York at mtownsend9@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

American Taxpayers to Lose $400 Billion on Fannie, Freddie, Wallison Says

December 31, 2009

By Betty Liu and Matthew Leising Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Taxpayer losses from supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will top $400 billion, according to Peter Wallison , a former general counsel at the Treasury who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “The situation is they are losing gobs of money, up to $400 billion in mortgages,” Wallison said in a Bloomberg Television interview. The Treasury Department recognized last week that losses will be more than $400 billion when it raised its limit on federal support for the two government-sponsored enterprises, he said. The U.S. seized the two mortgage financiers in 2008 as the government struggled to prevent a meltdown of the financial system. The debt of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks grew an average of $184 billion annually from 1998 to 2008, helping fuel a bubble that drove home prices up by 107 percent between 2000 and mid-2006, according to the S&P/Case- Shiller home-price index. The Treasury said on Dec. 24 it would provide an unlimited amount of assistance to the companies as needed for the next three years to alleviate market concern that the government lifeline for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest source of money for U.S. home loans, could lapse or be exhausted. Lax regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to the mortgage companies taking on too many risky loans, Wallison said. “It turns out it was impossible to regulate them,” he said. “They were too powerful.” He said no one knows how much will be needed to keep the companies solvent. From 1990 to 1999, Wallison served on the board of directors of MGIC Investment Corp., the largest U.S. mortgage insurer, including a stint on the audit committee, according to Bloomberg data and company filings. The continued government support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac makes buying their debt a good investment, Wallison said. “It was always safe to buy these notes,” he said. The U.S. government was always going to stand behind them. They’re as good as Treasury notes.” To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Leising in New York at mleising@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

GMAC’s Latest Bailout: $3.5 Billion More In Aid, According To Report

December 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — The government on Wednesday was moving ahead with a fresh multibillion dollar cash infusion to stabilize auto finance company GMAC Financial Services as it continues to struggle with big losses in its home mortgage unit, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because discussions weren’t complete, says the government aid would range around $3 billion. That would be less than the roughly $6 billion the government had earlier thought GMAC would need to stabilize the company. Shoring up GMAC has been a major component of the Obama administration’s massive effort to rescue ailing automakers General Motors and Chrysler. The lender provides critical wholesale financing to thousands of GM and Chrysler auto dealers, allowing them to stock their showroom floors with vehicles. GMAC has already received $12.5 billion in taxpayer money and is 35 percent owned by the federal government. But GMAC also operates a large residential mortgage business, ResCap, which was battered by the recent housing collapse. GMAC was obligated by the Treasury Department to raise $11.5 billion in additional capital earlier this year after failing the government’s stress test for banks, largely because of ResCap’s big losses. However, GMAC had difficulty raising money because of its financial woes, making an extra government infusion necessary. An announcement of the latest injection of aid could come late Wednesday or on Thursday. Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams declined to offer details, but said: “Treasury is in discussions with GMAC to ensure its capital needs as determined … by the stress tests are met.” GMAC spokeswoman Gina Proia said Wednesday that GMAC is weighing options for reviving ResCap. It is also reviewing its broader business as it tries to improve its financial health and eventually repay the taxpayer money it has already received. Michael Carpenter, who succeeded Alvaro De Molina as the company’s CEO in November, has said the company would need no more than $5.6 billion in aid. Lawmakers estimated the company would receive between $2 billion and $5 billion in additional aid. Despite the government support, GMAC still remains on shaky financial ground. Last month, it reported a quarterly loss of $767 million, though the results were an improvement over a giant loss a year ago. ResCap lost $747 million during the third quarter as homeowners continued to default on their mortgages in large numbers. GMAC has also been hurt by the rapid decline of the U.S. auto industry after sales crumbled due to the recession and financial woes of the big automakers. Sales of cars and trucks were down 24 percent through November compared with the same part of last year. Despite the drop in auto sales, GMAC’s auto lending business has shown some signs of revival. The auto financing division earned a profit of $395 million during the third quarter. The company’s online consumer banking unit, Ally Bank, has also been a bright spot by bringing in billions of dollars in new deposits by offering relatively high interest rates. __ AP Business Writers Candice Choi and Dan Strumpf in New York contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Regulators Resist Volcker Wandering World Warning of Too-Big-to-Fail Again

December 15, 2009

By Gadi Dechter and Alan Katz Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) — Paul A. Volcker visited nine cities in five countries in the past eight weeks to warn that bankers and regulators “have not come anywhere close to responding with necessary vigor” to the worst economic crisis in 70 years. “There is a lot of evidence that financial weaknesses brought us to the brink of a great depression,” Volcker, 82, said Dec. 8. at a conference in West Sussex, England. He told executives there that the changes they’ve proposed are “like a dimple.” Two years after the start of the deepest recession since the 1930s, no U.S. or European authority has put in force a single measure that would transform the financial system, based on data compiled by Bloomberg. No rule- or law-making body is actively considering the automatic dismantling of banks that Volcker told Congress are sheltered by access to an implicit safety net. There’s little evidence that policy makers are heeding Volcker, the former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. More than 50 regulatory overhaul proposals have been submitted in the U.S. and Europe, the data compiled by Bloomberg show. Lawmakers and regulators have debated new rules for capitalization and leverage, central clearing for derivatives trading, oversight of hedge funds and ways to monitor systemic risk. While the U.S. House of Representatives has approved a financial regulation bill, authorities in the U.S. and Europe have sidelined measures that would automatically force changes in the structure of financial companies that Bank of England Governor Mervyn King called “too important to fail.” Volcker is leading a chorus arguing for restricting the size or primary functions of financial institutions. Volcker’s Travels “He is spot on,” Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, said in an e-mail. Volcker, who heads President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board , told Kentucky’s Georgetown College students “we need to produce more, finance less,” according to the school’s Web site, and said in Bonn that some banks have “pervasive conflicts of interest.” In Berlin, he told Bloomberg television that “this isn’t any time to go back to business as usual.” After Volcker became chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1979, he restricted the money supply, forcing interest rates to 20 percent to break an inflationary surge. Following the recession that ensued, President Ronald Reagan nominated Alan Greenspan in 1987 to replace Volcker, who had succeeded in driving the inflation rate to 1.1 percent by the end of 1986. Dubai, China A new debt crisis may threaten the economy before regulatory changes are enacted, according to Simon Johnson , an entrepreneurship professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and a former International Monetary Fund chief economist. Most of the world’s large international banks continued to expand as stock markets plunged and credit froze last year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. After Dubai, the second-biggest sheikhdom in the United Arab Emirates, said Nov. 25 that it might delay debt payments by a development unit, analysts questioned whether the European Union would back Greece’s debt, roiling Greek stocks and bonds. Abu Dhabi promised yesterday to help the Dubai unit avoid defaulting. In China, a 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) stimulus package, five interest rate cuts since September 2008 and $1.35 trillion in lending this year may lead to an asset bubble, according to Erwin Sanft, head of China and Hong Kong equities research at BNP Paribas SA. “Making meaningful regulatory changes is urgent now because this is the window of opportunity,” MIT’s Johnson said in an interview. “If that window closes, we’re asking for trouble.” Resolve Fades U.S. and European governments’ $15 trillion of guarantees, cash injections and other financial industry support, based on Bank of England data, may have been too successful. After Obama and other leaders opened 2009 promising sweeping financial overhaul, credit thawed, markets rebounded and resolve for “fundamental reform” faded, according to Susan Hoffman, a professor of political science at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo and author of the book “Politics and Banking: Ideas, Public Policy, and the Creation of Financial Institutions.” Bloomberg News interviewed lawmakers, investors, economists, analysts and academics from 11 countries and reviewed draft laws and rules in the U.S. and Europe, the epicenters of the crisis of 2007-2008. The measures included those by members of executive or legislative branches in the U.S. and EU and by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision , which recommends standards for financial institutions for 27 countries including the U.S., Russia, Japan and Brazil. State of Play The survey found that most of the more than 50 proposals are still being debated. Among at least 14 adopted are limits on banker pay in France, the U.K, and the Netherlands; more stringent testing of banks’ ability to withstand losses in Germany; and tougher capital rules in Switzerland. In the U.S., Congress isn’t likely to pass final legislation until next year, as Obama and the Democratic leadership have made health-care overhaul the top priority and lawmakers face resistance from Wall Street banks, hedge funds and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Financial companies historically are the largest donors to congressional election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. House Bill The House voted 223-202 Dec. 11 to approve a package assembled by the Financial Services Committee. The bill would heighten consumer protections, expand oversight of hedge funds and derivatives and set up a mechanism to allow — without requiring — regulators to dismantle large firms whose failure could threaten the economy. The Senate is writing its own law. “The House of Representatives has acted to leave the age of dishonesty, recklessness and irresponsibility behind,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, after the vote. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, has proposed a European Systemic Risk Board similar to authorities being considered in the U.S., with the power to warn national regulators of risks. EU bodies are also developing rules on derivatives, hedge funds and bank capital. Asia accounted for 2.5 percent of the $1.71 trillion in losses and writedowns by banks and insurers during 2007-2008, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Regulatory overhaul steps by Japan include expanding financial inspections of insurance and securities companies. China asked its biggest banks to increase capital ratios to at least 11 percent from 10 percent. The minimum set by the Basel committee is 8 percent. Great Depression Governments worldwide need to work together to implement roughly the same solutions at about the same time, or financial companies may move their operations to the countries with the least stringent rules, regulators said in interviews. To be sure, restructuring in the U.S. during the Great Depression came together years after the 1929 stock market crash. Congress took until 1933 to create the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and 1934 to establish the Securities and Exchange Commission. Now lawmakers are attempting to reverse three decades of deregulation. “This is one time when you hope they move slowly,” said Bert Ely , the head of Ely & Co., a bank consulting firm in Alexandria, Virginia, in an interview. Protecting the economy from another catastrophe is important enough for lawmakers to take their time, said Ely, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group, who has testified before Congress. “You’ve got to get it right the first time,” he said. HSBC’s Green New regulations might slow economic expansion, according to Stephen Green , chairman of London-based HSBC Holdings Plc. “If all of the measures currently under discussion with regard to strengthening the financial system came in their most extreme form and all too quickly, there is no question in my mind that this would damage the recovery,” Green said in a Nov. 17 speech in London. The countries belonging to the Basel committee will probably agree next year on tougher capital, liquidity and leverage requirements for banks, members said. Implementation will take longer and depend on economic recovery, they said. The measures would substantially increase amounts that banks have to set aside against emergencies, potentially reducing their lending ability, according to Josef Ackermann , chief executive of Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG. Antitrust regulators forced asset sales at bailed-out companies, such as the U.K.’s Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Germany’s Commerzbank AG. Still, European banks are emerging from the credit crisis bigger than before, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The data show European bank assets grew 25 percent since January 2007, compared with a 20 percent rise at U.S. lenders. ‘It’s Insanity’ Four U.S. institutions — Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup — held 35 percent of the country’s deposits on June 30, compared with 28 percent by the four biggest two years before, according to the FDIC and the Fed. The world’s 10 largest banks at the end of 2008 had 26 percent of the assets of the top 1,500 banks, up from 18 percent in 1999, Bloomberg data show. “It’s insanity that the too-big-to-fail institutions are even bigger today than they were,” said U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders , a Vermont independent, in an interview. “God forbid we have another financial crisis.” Governments should separate deposit-taking banks from those that use their own money to trade and issue securities, said Irving Kahn , 103, who has worked on Wall Street since 1928. Reed’s Apology “I wouldn’t lend you a dime if I knew you loved to gamble at a casino,” said Kahn, the chairman of investment advisers Kahn Brothers Group Inc., in an interview. John S. Reed , the former co-chief executive officer of Citigroup Inc., regrets helping to engineer the merger that created the bank, he said. Citigroup, which took $45 billion in U.S. aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said yesterday that it will repay $20 billion. “I’m sorry,” Reed, 70, said in an interview. U.S. lawmakers were wrong in 1999 to repeal the Depression-era Glass- Steagall Act, he said. The act required the separation of institutions involved in capital markets from those engaged primarily in traditional customer services, such as taking deposits and making loans. Resurrecting Glass-Steagall would reduce the need for the taxpayer bailouts that added between 9 percent and 49 percent to the profits of the 18 biggest U.S. banks in 2009, according to Dean Baker , co-director of the Center for Economic & Policy Research in Washington. Europe’s Universal Banks Another school of thought is that outlawing institutions of a certain size or laying down universal caps on securities trading by retail banks would be impractical, ineffectual and a potential drag on growth, politicians and regulators in charge of rule-writing in the U.S. and the EU said in interviews. “Plenty of firms got into trouble making regular commercial loans, and plenty of firms got into trouble in market-making activities,” Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke , 56, told the Economic Club of New York on Nov. 16. “The separation of those two things per se would not necessarily lead to stability.” In continental Europe, most regulators say they see little reason to break up so-called universal banks — such as Deutsche Bank, HSBC and BNP Paribas — largely because they have withstood turmoil. HSBC didn’t take the U.K. government’s offer for aid, and Deutsche Bank never tapped Germany’s bank-rescue fund. BNP took 5.1 billion euros as part of a program to provide funds to banks in exchange for an increase in lending. The bank raised 4.3 billion euros in a rights issue in October 2009 to reimburse the government. Fisherman’s Patience “The crisis didn’t come from here,” said Daniele Nouy , secretary general of the Commission Bancaire, France’s bank regulator. “We think our model, with universal banks and a single, strong regulator, works well.” The nascent economic recovery represents a serious threat to the overhaul of financial regulation, according to Representative Brad Miller , a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. “My greatest fear for the last year has been an economic collapse as bad as the Great Depression,” Miller said in an interview. “My second greatest fear was that the economy would stabilize and begin to recover and the financial industry would have the clout to defeat the fundamental reforms that our nation desperately needs. My greatest fear seems less likely, lately, but my second greatest fear seems more likely every day.” With a fisherman’s patience, Volcker said he may eventually get his way on financial regulation. He took a break from his efforts in July, fly-fishing in New Brunswick’s Restigouche River. He landed a 28-pound Atlantic salmon, according to his staff. “I’m not alone in this,” Volcker said at the Dec. 8 conference. “I think I’m probably going to win in the end.” To contact the reporters on this story: Gadi Dechter in Washington at gdechter@bloomberg.net ; Alan Katz in Paris at akatz5@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Not Losing Is New Winning for Wall Street Watering Down Laws From Congress

December 14, 2009

By Alison Vekshin and Michael J. Moore Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) — Four Wall Street lobbyists and about a dozen lawmakers huddled over eggs and bacon at Tortilla Coast restaurant on Capitol Hill on Dec. 2 to discuss legislation aimed at strengthening bank regulation. The meeting between fiscally conservative House Democrats and lobbyists for the largest U.S. financial firms turned tense, with a lot of finger-pointing, recalled one attendee. The message delivered over breakfast: We bailed you out last year with taxpayer dollars. Now help us address the needs of constituents by aiding struggling homeowners and lending more. The backlash against bailouts and bonuses is making it harder for Wall Street to get its way as lawmakers redesign the framework for financial oversight. The biggest banks may be forced to submit to a new regulator for mortgages , credit cards and other consumer products; put $150 billion into a fund the government will use if they collapse; and pay more to insure deposits. Still, the firms that helped precipitate the worst financial crisis in 70 years have so far sidestepped proposals that would have split investment and commercial banking, capped pay or seriously hurt their ability to make money. “The industry is not losing as badly as it thought it might,” said Oliver Ireland , a former associate general counsel at the Federal Reserve and now a partner at law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP in Washington. “The fact that someone had a worse proposal on the table and it doesn’t happen — it’s hard to view that as a win. It’s not as big a loss.” ‘Memory Loss’ That banks are making any headway “is astonishing,” said Travis Plunkett , legislative director at the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America . “Some members of Congress seem to have memory loss,” Plunkett said. “They are forgetting that the very institutions whose amendments they’re proposing were the entities that helped cause our nation’s financial collapse. The banks are playing death by 1,000 cuts.” The House last week passed a package of measures to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, bolster oversight of derivatives and hedge funds, limit incentives in executive pay that spur excessive risk-taking and set up a mechanism to dismantle large firms that fail. The bill reflects the set of regulatory proposals President Barack Obama released in June. The Senate has yet to consider a bill and isn’t expected to vote on one until at least early next year. The Senate Banking Committee is reworking a draft released last month by Senator Christopher Dodd , the committee chairman, after Republicans complained that it would expand the government’s powers too far. The lack of consensus in the Senate may offer more opportunity for lobbyists to mold and defeat parts of the legislation before it reaches a vote. ‘Water It Down’ “Wall Street is probably happy with the slowness of the process because the slower the process is, the more you can drag it out and water it down,” said Paul Miller , an analyst with FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia. “Right now, all the energy and political capital is going into health care.” Whatever legislation emerges, it likely won’t reintroduce aspects of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that would split commercial and investment banking. That idea, which could lead to the breakup of large banks such as Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. , has won support from Bank of England Governor Mervyn King and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker , now head of the U.S. Economic Recovery Advisory Board. No such proposal is in current legislation before Congress. Derivatives Push-Back Wall Street also pushed back with some success against proposals to regulate derivatives, such as one put forward by Senator Tom Harkin , an Iowa Democrat who served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee until September, that would have required all contracts be conducted on regulated exchanges. Derivatives contracts, including credit-default swaps, are used by companies to protect against swings in commodity prices , interest rates and other operational risks. Trading them on exchanges would carry transaction costs and crimp one of Wall Street’s most lucrative businesses. The top five U.S. commercial banks were on track at the end of the second quarter to earn $35 billion in over-the-counter derivatives trading this year, according to a review of company filings with the Fed and people familiar with the banks’ income sources. Much of the lobbying was conducted by the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users, a trade group that represents companies such as Apple Inc. and Johnson & Johnson. The group asked banks not to join their negotiations with lawmakers for fear that the unpopularity of the financial industry would harm their case, according to people familiar with the discussions. New Democrats Under the House bill, banks will still be able to trade customized derivatives contracts over-the-counter. Because of choices about where trades can be executed, few standardized contracts may be pushed onto exchanges. Airlines, energy companies and other corporate end-users that rely on derivatives would also be exempt from most new requirements. “The OTC reform has gotten to be basically irrelevant as far as change,” said Chris Whalen , managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics in Torrance, California. “There are some things in there that are irritating to the Street, but compared with what we thought we were going to get over the summer, it’s night and day.” The New Democrat Coalition, a group of 68 pro-business lawmakers in Congress, has succeeded in making changes in the House bill sought by the industry. One involved the issue of whether the federal government can override states in applying consumer protection laws. Bean Intervenes National banks sought to keep states from applying tougher laws, saying they wanted to avoid having to comply with a patchwork of state regulations. New Democrats delayed House consideration of the reform bill on Dec. 9 to force negotiations on an amendment offered by Representative Melissa Bean , an Illinois Democrat and vice chairman of the coalition , to expand the power of federal regulators to override state laws from what was in the bill. Instead of starting debate on legislation that was six months in the making, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter marched into a meeting in the offices of Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the second floor of the U.S. Capitol. Frank, who introduced the financial overhaul legislation, and other House leaders were in one room, while Bean and Treasury officials were in another. Hoyer shuttled back and forth, according to a person familiar with the matter. ‘Successful Run’ An hour later, shortly after 6 p.m., Frank emerged from the meeting and told reporters a deal had been reached. A version of Bean’s proposal would be included in the bill. “The differences have been narrowed, and I think you’re getting something that both sides can live with,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. Debate on the bill began at 6:49 p.m. “Some of the big banks had a successful run at lobbying the New Democrats,” including on the preemption issue, Frank said in a Dec. 10 interview. Public outrage over the industry’s role in the financial crisis and the bailout it got from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program has made lawmakers less willing to seek input from Wall Street than in the past, several lobbyists said. Wall Street Bonuses Two-thirds of Americans say they have an unfavorable view of financial executives, making them less popular than members of Congress and lawyers, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,000 U.S. adults conducted Dec. 3-7. Obama said in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” program yesterday that he is frustrated that “fat-cat bankers” are continuing to pay out large bonuses and fighting his effort to revamp financial regulations. He will host a meeting today with executives from 12 of the nation’s largest banks to discuss his proposals to overhaul regulations and boost small-business lending, an administration official said. Wall Street year-end bonuses will be announced in January as the Senate likely debates a bill. That could prompt another wave of anger, emboldening lawmakers. “The regulatory and political risk is real,” said Jason Goldberg , a senior bank analyst at Barclays Capital in New York. “Talking to bank CEOs looking toward next year, I think for most it’s their No. 1 risk, ahead of the economy and ahead of asset quality, because a lot of it is just unknown.” The biggest threat to Wall Street may be an amendment introduced by Representative Paul Kanjorski , a Pennsylvania Democrat and a member of the House Financial Services Committee, that would let regulators dismantle healthy, well-capitalized financial firms whose size could threaten the economy. Industry lobbyists failed to kill the amendment, which passed as part of the House legislation last week. ‘Kind of Nuts’ “It’s just frankly kind of nuts,” Steve Bartlett , president of the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington- based industry trade group, said in a Nov. 18 Bloomberg Television interview. “It is the large companies that provide almost all of the financing for the economy as a whole. You can’t finance this economy with a hundred small banks on the corner.” Rob Nichols , president of the Financial Services Forum, which represents the chief executive officers of 18 of the largest financial firms, said in an interview that he tried to convince Kanjorski, Frank and other lawmakers to drop the provision, arguing that larger firms aren’t necessarily riskier and that the proposal would put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage with their overseas rivals. Consumer Agency “The industry needs to understand that the system was broken going into this and needs to be fixed and the status quo is not acceptable,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said in a Dec. 3 interview. “There’s a core need for reform, and they need to understand that and work with Washington to accomplish it in a way that strengthens our markets and not oppose it.” Lawmakers have been friendlier to smaller banks, which persuaded House members to exempt lenders with less than $10 billion in assets from examination and enforcement by the new consumer protection agency. While the agency will set rules for smaller banks, their primary regulator will examine them for compliance and crack down on violations. The exemption applies to 99 percent of the nation’s 7,996 banks. The agency, an idea proposed by Obama to police banks for abuses against consumers in credit-card and mortgage lending, was the industry’s prime target. Bank officials lashed out against the plan, saying a standalone agency isn’t necessary, since bank regulators already have the authority, and that it would increase the cost of credit. They didn’t prevail. The House last week rejected an amendment that would have cut the agency from the bill. Plain Vanilla “What planet are you living on?” Dodd said of industry opposition to the agency at a June 18 hearing. “The very people who created the damn mess are the ones now arguing that consumers ought not to be protected.” Even so, Wall Street was able to score some victories with the consumer agency. The House legislation does not require financial institutions to offer so-called plain-vanilla products and services or assess whether consumers understand the products they offer, as Obama wanted. The bill empowers regulators to ban incentive pay that encourages risk-taking and requires all public companies to give shareholders a non-binding vote on top managers’ compensation. Neither the House bill nor the Senate draft sets limits on pay or requires specific periods for deferring bonuses and holding stock, such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy demanded and Treasury’s special pay master Kenneth Feinberg imposed on companies that needed exceptional government assistance. Cram-Down Amendment Another concession involved a provision that requires creditors and companies that package loans into securities to retain on their books as much as 10 percent of the credit risk on all loans. The measure, which the industry had argued would eliminate securitization, was amended to limit the industry’s stake to 5 percent. The House also rejected a mortgage “cram-down” amendment, opposed by banks and broker-dealers, that would have given federal judges the power to lengthen mortgage terms, cut interest rates and reduce loan balances for homeowners in bankruptcy court. Some provisions of the House bill will hurt Wall Street, especially the biggest banks. They will have to pay a greater share of fees to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund, and banks with more than $50 billion in assets will be assessed charges to finance a separate $150 billion industry-supported fund to cover the failure of a large systemically important financial firm. ‘Best Friends’ The industry argued that having firms pay into the fund before a collapse would tie up money that may never be used. Frank, who initially supported an Obama administration proposal to assess fees after a large firm failed, reversed course, saying waiting until after the fact would require going to the taxpayer first and then having the industry repay the government. Another amendment opposed by Wall Street and approved by the House would force secured creditors to bear losses of as much as 20 percent to help cover the cost of unwinding a failed systemically important financial firm. Banks say the measure will increase borrowing costs and disrupt credit markets. “We were their best friends when they needed TARP money to dig them out of the mess that they put themselves in,” said Representative Luis Gutierrez , an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, who introduced the proposal for the $150 billion resolution fund. “The folks at Goldman Sachs are distributing billions of dollars. We made it possible. It’s shameless that they should be using their profits to stop the American people through this legislative process.” To contact the reporters on this story: Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net ; Michael J. Moore in New York at mmoore55@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Eric C. Anderson: AIG and the Season of Greed

December 7, 2009

There is apparently no sense of responsibility or shame at AIG. You remember AIG…the insurance giant we taxpayers “loaned” $182 billion because the firm’s executives apparently did not understand the risks associated with over-investing in credit-derivatives. Deemed too big to fail, Washington ultimately landed up nationalizing the firm by purchasing 80% of this poorly managed behemoth with our hard-earned dollars. Now here’s the rest of the story. Despite their clear leadership failure, AIG executives still feel entitled to outlandish compensation and golden-parachute severance payments. Yes, you read correctly — AIG executives are now threatening to quit if their pay is dramatically curtailed by the Obama administration’s compensation czar. On 7 December 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported AIG’s general counsel and the heads of some of its largest insurance businesses were prepared to resign as a result of pay concerns. (Warning, those who are currently unemployed or have been compelled to work reduced hours should stop reading now…the outrage at what you are about to learn can cause elevated blood pressure and a desire to irrationally lash out at one’s computer screen.) According to the Journal , the five executives involved in this latest bid for corporate infamy are concerned the compensation czar is going to trim their 2009 pay and impose even greater restrictions on their 2010 remuneration–including a prohibition on collecting golden-parachute severance packages. The Journal goes on to note Ms. Anastasia Kelly — AIG’s general counsel — seems to be the prime culprit behind this outlandish behavior. A source familiar with the story told the Journal Ms. Kelly claims she didn’t “instigate or encourage” the silliness, but “only advised the other executives they needed to protect their rights.” I’m sorry, by when an attorney — particularly one who has been named a corporate general counsel — tells me I need to “protect my rights,” well, he or she is now leading the charge. Oh, by the way, did I mention Ms. Kelly is trying to protect a golden parachute she supposedly earned after serving at AIG for less than five years…unbelievable. This is a sense of entitlement that makes even Marie Antoinette a sympathetic character. One of the other culprits in this cabal…Mr. William Dooley, the gentleman responsible for overseeing AIG’s financial-services division — the very division that pushed AIG into its current woes. How Mr. Dooley can possibly feel entitled to a large bundle of cash is beyond me. My recommendation is that we treat him to the salary offered to any other senior member of the federal bureaucracy — and thus subject to a salary cap that falls well short of $200,000. Keep in mind Mr. Dooley works for the U.S. taxpayers — we own 80%…80% of his current employer. If the salaries Congress has imposed on the federal bureaucracy are good enough for all those who have chosen to serve the people, this pay scale should certainly be good enough for the financial industry robber barons who went looking for taxpayer bailouts. Perhaps Ms. Kelly and Mr. Dooley need to be reminded that, absent taxpayer dollars, they would be former employees of a now-bankrupt firm. Talk about a let down…ask the former employees of Enron about the fate of their bonuses and golden parachutes. Or, better yet, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Dooley could have a long conversation with one or two of the approximately 80,000 members of the financial industry who have lost their job in the last 18 months. Somehow I suspect they won’t find much sympathy on the cold, hard streets of Atlanta, Las Vegas, Miami, or New York. I have to wonder where this audacity of greed is generated. Do they teach “Greed 101″ in business school? Or is that a trait learned on the job? My friends in academia insist no such course exists, so it must be a special program offered at only the most select firms. I know the class is somewhere in Goldman Sachs’ training catalog. Last year Goldman Sachs was asking for taxpayer backing and legal protection as a bank holding company rather than remaining an investment bank. This year Goldman Sachs is planning to payout an estimated $17 billion in bonuses. Admittedly, those bonuses are likely to be heavier on stock options than dollar bills, but that only happened as a result of shareholder outrage. Well, I’m expressing my shareholder outrage at the behavior of AIG’s top executives. President Obama’s compensation czar needs to take a ruler to these executives’ knuckles and then make clear all future compensation at this taxpayer owned entity will be based on the federal bureaucracy’s pay scale. One can be assured this will cause some of the greed mongers to flee the firm — but who is going to hire people who managed to endanger the entire American economy? Surely someone on Wall Street understands culpability in a scandal of this magnitude should not be rewarded with further exaggerated remuneration. Oh, and I have one other candidate for a bit of draconian behavior modification while Washington is on the subject. Citigroup also wants out from under the pay czar’s thumb. We should oblige the executives at Citi by selling the 7.7 billion shares we taxpayers currently own at that corporation. As the Kuwait sovereign wealth fund just demonstrated, now is the time to make a killing by selling Citi holdings. Kuwait earned a profit of $1.1 billion by bailing on Citi. The U.S. taxpayers would pick up an estimated $6 billion in profit by following suit. I’m sorry if such a move would leave Citigroup vulnerable to collapse and even further layoffs, but, hey, your corporate managers are more concerned about their paychecks than your future employment. Chalk it up to a sense of self entitlement…and lessons they learned from watching events unfold at AIG. Alas, we have indeed now entered the season of greed.

Read the full article →

Bloomberg Reporter Mark Pittman’s Passing Honored By MSNBC’s Ratigan

November 30, 2009

On today’s “Morning Meeting”, Dylan Ratigan closed the show by paying tribute to his former Bloomberg colleague, Mark Pittman, who passed away over the weekend. I don’t have a long history of monitoring business coverage, but when last year’s financial collapse sent me more fully down that path, I frequently came across Pittman’s reporting. I found what many of his more devoted fans and long-time colleagues have attested to in the days since his death: that Pittman was one of the guys who consistently got it right. And as Ratigan points out, he really exemplified the open-source ethos at Bloomberg, where reporters work hard to demystify Wall Street culture and hold it accountable. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy RATIGAN: I want to take a minute to salute a former colleague of mine and a reporter who had the guts not only to take on the Federal Reserve, but to take on the entire banking system. Mark Pittman passed away last week in New York at the too young age of 52. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz called Pittman one of the great financial journalists of our time. He did a tremendous job explaining and laying out the layering of subprime. But Pittman’s final legacy is yet to be written. Just three months ago, Pittman and Bloomberg News won a key legal victory in the efforts to get the Fed to open its books to the public so we can see the back door bailouts that they are providing to American banks. But, unfortunately, Pittman did not live to see the end of the battle he started. The Federal Reserve appealing a decision that went in Pittman’s favor. Bloomberg’s response to the Fed appeal due next week. A hearing expected the first week in January. So from all of us at the Morning Meeting , we want to take a minute to pay our respects to a man who led the charge, trying to use the freedom of the press to fight for the American principles of fairness and punishing those who would cheat them. We would be all better off if there were more reporters like Mark Pittman looking out for America’s interests against those in our government and banking system that would seek to exploit the taxpayer for their personal enrichment. This can be stopped. It’s in the process, I believe, of stopping and it will be done through quality information in the hands of every voter and consumer in this country. And when it comes to quality information, pay some respect to Pittman’s contributions. Some notable pieces of reportage include his contribution to Bloomberg’s award-winning subprime series , his Goldman Sachs-AIG bailout dot-connector and his excellent exploration of the dark heart of toxic assets . I’ve personally been fond of citing his article comparing the bailout deal Hank Paulson arranged on behalf of taxpayers to the bailout deal that Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett arranged for himself. It’s a terrible thing that I’ll have to include “the late Mark Pittman” in future citations. Over at La Figa, Lisa Derrick reminds that Pittman was profiled in a movie called “American Casino”, whose title is derived from a term Pittman coined in his reporting of the subprime crisis: Pittman’s Bloomberg colleague Bob Ivry offers up the definitive obituary, here . Over at Columbia Journalism Review, Ryan Chittum points us in the direction of an “Audit Interview” they did with Pittman earlier this year. CJR has updated that interview with a ton of links, well worth nosing through — Chittum and his colleagues have been leading the way in holding Pittman up as an exemplary reporter for some time now. Felix Salmon offers his own tribute , saying that the “loss to the profession is irreplaceable.” And the folks over at Zero Hedge say that Pittman had something big on the way : Zero Hedge staffers met with Mark days before his death at which point we discovered he was working on a major financial expose. We would be humbled to pick up the torch and bring his last opus to closure. It’s a sad loss, leaving big shoes to fill. We wish Pittman’s colleagues and loved ones all the best. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]

Read the full article →

In Crazy New Landscape For Banks, Taxpayers Are The Big Losers

November 24, 2009

This story has been updated Fifty banks collapsed during the third quarter of 2009, while more than one in 15 are on the verge of failure — the highest rate since 1992 — according to a new report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that depicts a crazy new landscape for banking in which taxpayers are the consistent losers. Because of all the failure and near failures, the fund that guarantees deposits hit the red for the first time since 1992. Meanwhile, some banks are making money hand over fist, with the sector as a whole posting $2.8 billion in profits — up from a $4.3 billion loss in the second quarter. They’re doing so in part by borrowing cheap federal money — subsidized by the American taxpayer — even while massively cutting back on lending. The plunge in lending since last quarter is the largest recorded since federal regulators began keeping track in 1984. The whole point of the taxpayer-funded bailout and the cheap money for banks was to recapitalize them in hopes of stimulating lending, but the banks are holding back — which is seriously slowing the economic recovery. “We need to see banks making more loans to their business customers,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair said Tuesday in a statement . “This is especially true for small businesses that rely on FDIC-insured institutions to provide over 60 percent of the credit they use.” In March, the Obama administration announced a $15 billion plan to jump-start government lending to small businesses. But construction and industrial loan balances at banks dropped 6.5 percent in the third quarter; overall loan balances dropped 2.8 percent. “I will not rest until businesses are investing again and businesses are hiring again and people have work again,” President Barack Obama said Monday . Financial firms — banks included — recorded $80 billion in profits, a 36 percent increase from the previous quarter and a 21 percent increase from the same period last year, according to third-quarter numbers released Tuesday by the Commerce Department. The annual rate that represents — $320 billion — is the highest it’s been since the first quarter of 2008, when the unemployment rate was less than half of what it is now. But the gulf between the haves and have-nots in the banking industry is widening, imperiling the very institutions whose lending is supposed to fuel the recovery. • The nation’s 7,408 smallest banks overall broke about even during the quarter. • The 579 mid-sized banks, loosely defined as holding assets between $1 billion and $10 billion, recorded an average loss of about $3 million during the quarter. • The biggest 112 banks, those with more than $10 billion in assets, recorded an average profit of nearly $42 million, according to the FDIC’s latest figures. Only three new banks were formed in the three-month-period ending in September, the smallest quarterly total since World War II. Christopher Whalen, a noted bank analyst at Institutional Risk Analytics , told HuffPost the situation in the banking industry is “pretty gruesome.” His firm tracks the overall level of stress in the sector via an index — and Whalen said U.S. banks haven’t seen today’s levels of stress since the 1930s. It’s “much worse” today than during the savings-and-loan crisis of the early 1990s, he said. He cautioned that the fourth quarter, which ends Dec. 31, is going to be even worse. While economists and the administration point to economic indicators that suggest the economy is slowly improving, Whalen said that banks always trail behind the rest of the economy. “We’re going to have a bloodbath,” he said. Banks were under pressure during the third quarter to cut costs and increase revenue because of the federal government’s ” stress tests ” in the spring — exams that gauged the health of the country’s 19 biggest banks. Federal regulators were trying to determine which banks needed to raise more money. Revenue was a key component of the formula. So banks tried to outperform in order to avoid being forced to raise more money, Whalen said. Indeed, expenses across the industry fell and profit increased. But next quarter, banks on solid footing will aggressively write off their bad loans — driving up losses — and those in a more precarious position will simply continue to “muddle along,” Whalen said. Either way, he predicted, lending will continue to fall. “That’s the problem for the economy. We’ve got probably a third of the industry that’s contracting,” Whalen said. “They’re not making new loans, they’re basically in a defensive posture, and that’s not going to change.” READ the report below: Quarterly Banking Profile – Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter !

Read the full article →

Kanjorski Plan to Dismantle Banks With Systemic Risk Passed by House Panel

November 18, 2009

By Alison Vekshin Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — A House committee approved giving the U.S. authority to break up healthy, well-capitalized firms whose size threatens the economy, a step Republicans said would create a “huge accumulation” of power. The House Financial Services Committee voted 38-29 today on an amendment that would let regulators dismantle a firm, limit mergers and acquisitions and force an end to activities deemed systemically risky. The financial industry opposed the measure, which is part of legislation to overhaul Wall Street rules. “I recognize this is extraordinary power,” Representative Paul Kanjorski , a Pennsylvania Democrat who proposed the amendment, said during debate. “Hopefully it will never have to be used because it is displayed and because it does exist.” The House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would create a council of regulators, including the Federal Reserve, to monitor large, interconnected firms for risks they pose. It’s part of the effort in Congress to overhaul financial rules to prevent a repeat of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Republicans opposed Kanjorski’s plan as giving too much authority to regulators. “That’s a huge accumulation of power that we’re going to give to five or six people that are on this council,” said Representative Randy Neugebauer , a Texas Republican. “We’re already imposing the federal government substantially on these entities.” Industry Opposition Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the committee’s top Republican, said the plan entrusts regulators to decide “what the financial industry should look like” and those agencies failed to anticipate the crisis, “let alone do anything to prevent it,” Bachus said. The Financial Services Roundtable, representing the biggest financial firms, and the Financial Services Forum also opposed the legislation. Kanjorski’s measure would empower the council to break apart firms considered well-capitalized if they are “so large, interconnected or risky that their collapse would put at risk the entire American economic system,” according to a bill summary released by Kanjorski’s office. The measure requires the council to consult with the president before taking “extraordinary” actions. The amendment doesn’t cap the size of financial firms, the summary said. The council would give Congress an annual report showing the size, concentration and links with other firms for the 50 largest U.S. financial institutions based on assets. Kanjorski has met some of the heads of firms that would be covered by the council and said he are is aware of the controversy the proposal has stirred. ‘Contentious Amendment’ “I don’t want to kid anybody,” Kanjorski said. “This is a contentious amendment.” Kanjorski’s proposal will discourage financial firms from expanding, said Scott Talbott , senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, representing many large U.S. financial firms in Washington. While a policy of having government prop up systemically important firms must be eliminated, targeting an institution’s size isn’t the solution, said Rob Nichols , president of the Financial Services Forum. “More effective supervision, coupled with the authority to seize and wind down large firms, is the appropriate remedy,” Nichols said. Lawmakers are seeking to prevent further taxpayer bailouts after last year’s rescues of American International Group Inc. , Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The committee plans to vote on Kanjorski’s amendment later today. The legislation must be passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president to become law. To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Goldman, Buffett Start $500 Million Program to Aid Small U.S. Businesses

November 17, 2009

By Robert Schmidt and Christine Harper Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , under fire in Washington for setting aside billions of dollars for bonuses a year after getting a taxpayer bailout, said it’s teaming up with Warren Buffett to provide assistance to 10,000 small businesses in the U.S. The $500 million charitable effort coincides with one of the Obama administration’s top economic priorities: spurring hiring at smaller companies. The initiative aims to provide assistance — ranging from counseling to obtaining funding — to 10,000 businesses. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc . is the largest shareholder in New York-based Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, is trying to dispel criticism from lawmakers and pundits who portray the company as the greedy face of a financial industry whose excessive risk-taking fueled the credit crisis. Unlike competitors that make home loans and provide small-business credit lines, more than 90 percent of Goldman Sachs’s pretax earnings this year came from trading and principal investments. “Small businesses play a vital role in creating jobs and growth in America’s economy,” Lloyd Blankfein , Goldman Sachs’s 55-year-old chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement today. “We are pleased to work with our partners in this initiative to support small business owners, particularly in those underserved communities.” The company has notified President Barack Obama’s administration about the small-business initiative, according to a person familiar with the program. ‘We Apologize’ Blankfein guided his firm to record profits in the first nine months of this year. The firm allocated $16.7 billion for compensation and benefits in the period, or enough to pay each employee $527,192 for nine months’ work. Blankfein, speaking at a conference today sponsored by Directorship magazine, apologized for Goldman Sachs’s role in some of the activities that led to the financial crisis, without providing specifics. “We participated in things that were clearly wrong and we have reason to regret and we apologize for them,” Blankfein said at the New York event. The magazine named him its CEO of the year. The firm’s response to critics has been to try to come up with solutions to the industry’s and the country’s problems, Blankfein said. ‘Doing the Right Thing’ Goldman Sachs leaders ask themselves, “What are we going to do to fulfill our commitment and our obligation to the world to be good allocators of capital and make sure we’re doing the right thing, making sure we’re helping the country pull out of recession, grow businesses that help generate jobs?” Blankfein said. The newly created “10,000 Small Businesses Initiative” will be guided by an advisory council co-chaired by Blankfein, Buffett and Harvard Business School’s Michael Porter . The council will include George Boggs , president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges, and Dan Danner , president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business. The program will contribute $200 million to local community colleges, universities and other institutions to provide small- business owners with practical business education. Goldman Sachs will invest $300 million through a combination of lending and philanthropic support to community development financial institutions. Buffett’s Investment Buffett, known as the “Oracle of Omaha” for his investing prowess, is the second-richest American. Berkshire, which invests in companies ranging from retailers to insurers, paid $5 billion in September 2008 to acquire preferred stock in Goldman Sachs that pays a 10 percent dividend. Berkshire, based in Omaha, Nebraska, also gained five-year warrants to buy $5 billion of common stock at $115 per share . Goldman Sachs repaid the $10 billion it was given last year under the taxpayer-funded Troubled Asset Relief Program, plus dividends. The firm continues to benefit from federal guarantees on about $21 billion of long-term debt. It was allowed to become a bank holding company to gain Federal Reserve support and was one of the biggest recipients of funds through the government bailout of American International Group Inc. Lawmakers, unions, and media commentators have criticized the firm’s compensation , especially as the economic recovery appears to have rewarded Wall Street more than Main Street. Shrinking Payrolls The unemployment rate in the U.S. rose to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October. Payrolls fell by 190,000 last month, according to the Labor Department. “Goldman Sachs seems to salute no flag but their own corporate logo,” Andy Stern , president of the 2.1 million- member Service Employees International Union, said at a rally yesterday in front of Goldman Sachs’s Washington office. He accused the company’s executives of “gorging themselves” on bonuses made possible by tax money from working Americans. Because Goldman Sachs repaid its TARP capital injection earlier this year, the government has no direct say over its pay. The Treasury has subjected seven companies, including Citigroup Inc. and AIG , to compensation restrictions. Goldman Sachs has previously unveiled charitable programs around the time of record employee payouts. ‘Shocking’ Pay In November 2007, a month before awarding bonuses that were the biggest ever in the securities industry, the company announced plans to raise as much as $1 billion for a philanthropic fund called Goldman Sachs Gives. The program was unveiled six months after John Whitehead , who retired as co-chairman of the firm in 1984 and oversaw its foundation, criticized Goldman Sachs’s “shocking” pay and said he’d tried unsuccessfully a year earlier to persuade the firm to donate $1 billion to charity. The fund was formed with a $50 million contribution from Goldman Sachs and $80 million from partners at the firm, each of whom has an account and can guide how the money is spent. In March 2008, the company said it planned to contribute $100 million over five years to provide business education to women in developing nations and elsewhere through an initiative called 10,000 Women. The program was established in 18 countries and has more than 60 partners. Last weekend, Goldman Sachs helped sponsor a Washington party to benefit a human rights group. Held at the home of Juleanna Glover , a principal in former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s consulting business, the event featured women in the media, including journalists from CNN, the Washington Post and NBC News. Buffett’s Gifts Buffett pledged the bulk of his Berkshire shares to Bill Gates’s health and education foundation in 2006. The donation, valued at $30.7 billion at the time, is the largest charitable commitment in history, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Buffett has also raised more than $5 million in the past decade for the Glide Foundation by auctioning off an annual lunch. Buffett’s late wife volunteered at the San Francisco- based charity, which offers food, clothes, shelter and health care to the needy. To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net ; Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Goldman, Buffett Start $500 Million Program to Aid Small U.S. Businesses

November 17, 2009

By Robert Schmidt and Christine Harper Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , under fire in Washington for setting aside billions of dollars for bonuses a year after getting a taxpayer bailout, said it’s teaming up with Warren Buffett to provide assistance to 10,000 small businesses in the U.S. The $500 million charitable effort coincides with one of the Obama administration’s top economic priorities: spurring hiring at smaller companies. The initiative aims to provide assistance — ranging from counseling to obtaining funding — to 10,000 businesses. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc . is the largest shareholder in New York-based Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, is trying to dispel criticism from lawmakers and pundits who portray the company as the greedy face of a financial industry whose excessive risk-taking fueled the credit crisis. Unlike competitors that make home loans and provide small-business credit lines, more than 90 percent of Goldman Sachs’s pretax earnings this year came from trading and principal investments. “Small businesses play a vital role in creating jobs and growth in America’s economy,” Lloyd Blankfein , Goldman Sachs’s 55-year-old chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement today. “We are pleased to work with our partners in this initiative to support small business owners, particularly in those underserved communities.” The company has notified President Barack Obama’s administration about the small-business initiative, according to a person familiar with the program. ‘We Apologize’ Blankfein guided his firm to record profits in the first nine months of this year. The firm allocated $16.7 billion for compensation and benefits in the period, or enough to pay each employee $527,192 for nine months’ work. Blankfein, speaking at a conference today sponsored by Directorship magazine, apologized for Goldman Sachs’s role in some of the activities that led to the financial crisis, without providing specifics. “We participated in things that were clearly wrong and we have reason to regret and we apologize for them,” Blankfein said at the New York event. The magazine named him its CEO of the year. The firm’s response to critics has been to try to come up with solutions to the industry’s and the country’s problems, Blankfein said. ‘Doing the Right Thing’ Goldman Sachs leaders ask themselves, “What are we going to do to fulfill our commitment and our obligation to the world to be good allocators of capital and make sure we’re doing the right thing, making sure we’re helping the country pull out of recession, grow businesses that help generate jobs?” Blankfein said. The newly created “10,000 Small Businesses Initiative” will be guided by an advisory council co-chaired by Blankfein, Buffett and Harvard Business School’s Michael Porter . The council will include George Boggs , president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges, and Dan Danner , president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business. The program will contribute $200 million to local community colleges, universities and other institutions to provide small- business owners with practical business education. Goldman Sachs will invest $300 million through a combination of lending and philanthropic support to community development financial institutions. Buffett’s Investment Buffett, known as the “Oracle of Omaha” for his investing prowess, is the second-richest American. Berkshire, which invests in companies ranging from retailers to insurers, paid $5 billion in September 2008 to acquire preferred stock in Goldman Sachs that pays a 10 percent dividend. Berkshire, based in Omaha, Nebraska, also gained five-year warrants to buy $5 billion of common stock at $115 per share . Goldman Sachs repaid the $10 billion it was given last year under the taxpayer-funded Troubled Asset Relief Program, plus dividends. The firm continues to benefit from federal guarantees on about $21 billion of long-term debt. It was allowed to become a bank holding company to gain Federal Reserve support and was one of the biggest recipients of funds through the government bailout of American International Group Inc. Lawmakers, unions, and media commentators have criticized the firm’s compensation , especially as the economic recovery appears to have rewarded Wall Street more than Main Street. Shrinking Payrolls The unemployment rate in the U.S. rose to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October. Payrolls fell by 190,000 last month, according to the Labor Department. “Goldman Sachs seems to salute no flag but their own corporate logo,” Andy Stern , president of the 2.1 million- member Service Employees International Union, said at a rally yesterday in front of Goldman Sachs’s Washington office. He accused the company’s executives of “gorging themselves” on bonuses made possible by tax money from working Americans. Because Goldman Sachs repaid its TARP capital injection earlier this year, the government has no direct say over its pay. The Treasury has subjected seven companies, including Citigroup Inc. and AIG , to compensation restrictions. Goldman Sachs has previously unveiled charitable programs around the time of record employee payouts. ‘Shocking’ Pay In November 2007, a month before awarding bonuses that were the biggest ever in the securities industry, the company announced plans to raise as much as $1 billion for a philanthropic fund called Goldman Sachs Gives. The program was unveiled six months after John Whitehead , who retired as co-chairman of the firm in 1984 and oversaw its foundation, criticized Goldman Sachs’s “shocking” pay and said he’d tried unsuccessfully a year earlier to persuade the firm to donate $1 billion to charity. The fund was formed with a $50 million contribution from Goldman Sachs and $80 million from partners at the firm, each of whom has an account and can guide how the money is spent. In March 2008, the company said it planned to contribute $100 million over five years to provide business education to women in developing nations and elsewhere through an initiative called 10,000 Women. The program was established in 18 countries and has more than 60 partners. Last weekend, Goldman Sachs helped sponsor a Washington party to benefit a human rights group. Held at the home of Juleanna Glover , a principal in former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s consulting business, the event featured women in the media, including journalists from CNN, the Washington Post and NBC News. Buffett’s Gifts Buffett pledged the bulk of his Berkshire shares to Bill Gates’s health and education foundation in 2006. The donation, valued at $30.7 billion at the time, is the largest charitable commitment in history, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Buffett has also raised more than $5 million in the past decade for the Glide Foundation by auctioning off an annual lunch. Buffett’s late wife volunteered at the San Francisco- based charity, which offers food, clothes, shelter and health care to the needy. To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net ; Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Goldman Said to Plan Small-Business Aid With Buffett to Blunt Pay Backlash

November 17, 2009

By Robert Schmidt and Christine Harper Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , under fire in Washington for setting aside billions of dollars for bonuses a year after getting a taxpayer bailout, is preparing to team up with Warren Buffett to provide assistance to small businesses, said people familiar with the matter. The charitable effort, which may be announced as soon as today, coincides with one of the Obama administration’s top economic priorities: spurring hiring at small companies. The initiative would aim to provide assistance — ranging from counseling to obtaining funding — to 10,000 U.S. businesses, according to the people, who declined to be identified before the program is announced. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc . is the largest shareholder in New York-based Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, is trying to dispel criticism from lawmakers and pundits who portray the company as the greedy face of a financial industry whose excessive risk-taking fueled the credit crisis. Unlike competitors that make home loans and provide small business credit lines, more than 90 percent of Goldman Sachs’s pretax earnings this year came from trading and principal investments. The company has notified President Barack Obama’s administration about the small-business initiative, according to one of the people familiar with the program. Lucas van Praag , a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment. Buffett didn’t reply to an e-mail seeking comment sent to his assistant, Carrie Kizer . Blankfein and the Oracle Lloyd Blankfein , Goldman Sachs’s 55-year-old chairman and chief executive officer, guided his firm to record profits in the first nine months of this year. The firm allocated $16.7 billion for compensation and benefits in the period, or enough to pay each employee $527,192 for nine months’ work. Buffett, known as the “Oracle of Omaha” for his investing prowess, is the second-richest American. Berkshire, which invests in companies ranging from retailers to insurers, paid $5 billion in September 2008 to acquire preferred stock in Goldman Sachs that pays a 10 percent dividend. Berkshire, based in Omaha, Nebraska, also gained five-year warrants to buy $5 billion of common stock at $115 per share. Goldman Sachs repaid the $10 billion it was given last year under the taxpayer-funded Troubled Asset Relief Program, plus dividends. The firm continues to benefit from federal guarantees on about $21 billion of long-term debt. It was allowed to become a bank holding company to gain Federal Reserve support and was one of the biggest recipients of funds through the government bailout of American International Group Inc. Shrinking Payrolls Lawmakers, unions, and media commentators have criticized the firm’s compensation, especially as the economic recovery appears to have rewarded Wall Street more than Main Street. The unemployment rate in the U.S. rose to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October. Payrolls fell by 190,000 last month, according to the Labor Department. “Goldman Sachs seems to salute no flag but their own corporate logo,” Andy Stern , president of the 2.1 million- member Service Employees International Union, said at a rally yesterday in front of Goldman’s Washington office. He accused the company’s executives of “gorging themselves” on bonuses made possible by tax money from working Americans. Because Goldman Sachs repaid its TARP capital injection earlier this year, the government has no direct say over its pay. The Treasury has subjected seven companies, including Citigroup Inc. and AIG , to compensation restrictions. Goldman Sachs has previously unveiled large charitable programs around the time of record employee payouts. ‘Shocking’ Pay In November 2007, a month before awarding employees bonuses that were the biggest ever in the securities industry, the company announced plans to raise as much as $1 billion for a philanthropic fund called Goldman Sachs Gives. The program was unveiled six months after John Whitehead , who retired as co-chairman of the firm in 1984 and oversaw its foundation, criticized Goldman Sachs’s “shocking” pay and said he’d tried unsuccessfully a year earlier to persuade the firm to donate $1 billion to charity. The fund was formed with a $50 million contribution from Goldman Sachs and $80 million from partners at the firm, each of whom has his or her own account and can guide how the money is spent. In March 2008, the company said it planned to contribute $100 million over five years to provide business education to women in developing nations and elsewhere through an initiative called 10,000 Women. The program has been established in 18 countries and has more than 60 partners. Buffett’s Gifts Last weekend, Goldman Sachs helped sponsor a Washington party to benefit a human rights group. Held at the home of Juleanna Glover , a principal in former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s consulting business, the event featured “powerful women in the media,” including journalists from CNN, the Washington Post and NBC News. Buffett pledged the bulk of his Berkshire shares to Bill Gates’s health and education foundation in 2006. The donation, valued at $30.7 billion at the time, is the largest charitable commitment in history, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Buffett has also raised more than $5 million in the past decade for the Glide Foundation by auctioning off an annual lunch. Buffett’s late wife volunteered at the San Francisco- based charity, which offers food, clothes, shelter and health care to the needy. To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net ; Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

General Motors Generates $3.3 Billion in Cash, Will Start Repaying Loans

November 16, 2009

By Katie Merx and Jeff Green Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) — General Motors Co., signaling confidence in its recovery from bankruptcy, said it generated $3.3 billion in cash in the third quarter and plans to start repaying government loans early. Cash on hand was $42.6 billion at the end of September after a restructuring engineered by the Obama administration, and GM reported progress in cutting jobs and shutting dealers. The loss since leaving Chapter 11 on July 10 was $1.15 billion, GM said today . The results offered Detroit-based GM’s first glimpse of its financial performance since shedding the remnants of the old General Motors Corp. on July 10 under the stewardship of Chairman Ed Whitacre and Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson . “The numbers are encouraging,” Maryann Keller , president of consultant Maryann Keller & Associates, told Bloomberg Television. “What it demonstrates is that the government gave GM a reorganized balance sheet that made them more competitive.” GM’s 8.375 percent bonds maturing in 2033, which will convert into equity in the new company, jumped 2.63 cents to 20.3 cents on the dollar at 9:14 a.m. in New York, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. A closing price at that level would be the highest since January. Cash Drain Headwinds this quarter will include a cash drain as the loan repayments begin and from a U.S. auto market that will be 8.5 percent smaller than in the previous three months, GM said. The U.S. government owns a 61 percent stake in the biggest domestic automaker, which said it still expects an initial public offering in 2010’s second half. Third-quarter revenue was $28 billion, including $26.4 billion for the post-bankruptcy period. GM reported unaudited data for July 1 through July 9 for General Motors Corp., and for the period since July 10. “We are ahead of the bankruptcy plan, not only in operations, but with some contingencies we provided for that we have been able to manage,” Henderson, 50, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Borrowing from the U.S., Canadian and Ontario governments will be repaid in quarterly installments from escrowed funds, beginning in December with an initial $1.2 billion payment, GM said. GM filed for bankruptcy on June 1, and the loans had a scheduled maturity date of July 2015. ‘Management Confidence’ “This is as much about management confidence as it is about consumer confidence,” Henderson said of the decision to begin paying back loans. “I’ve been asked probably a hundred times, ‘When are you going to start paying back the taxpayer?’ The answer is now.” GM’s results don’t compare directly with year-earlier data because of the bankruptcy. The pre-Chapter 11 GM lost $2.54 billion in 2008’s third quarter, its best three-month period last year. GM amassed $88 billion in losses from 2004 through the first quarter under former CEO Rick Wagoner , who was asked by the government’s auto task force to step aside in March. Today’s loan-repayment pledge was telegraphed last week by Whitacre, 68, who raised the possibility in an interview. Named by the auto task force to lead GM’s revamped board, the former AT&T Inc. chairman and CEO said he has been prodding executives to “hurry every chance we get” to fix GM. ‘Fire Lit’ “This company does seem to have a fire lit under it and is making decisions faster,” said auto consultant Keller, who is based in Stamford, Connecticut. Henderson said it was “my mission” to disprove a Sept. 9 government report predicting that the Treasury would be unlikely to recover all of the estimated $85 billion in federal aid provided to GM and Chrysler Group LLC. GM would need to reach a market value of about $68 billion, more than its $57 billion peak in 2000, to fully repay the government, the Congressional Oversight Panel said. Cash on hand at the end of the fourth quarter will be “materially lower” than on Sept. 30 because of costs that will include $8.3 billion to help cover the loan repayments and $2.8 billion for the settlement of the bankruptcy of former parts unit Delphi Automotive LLP , GM said. Debt totaled $17 billion at the end of the third quarter, including $6.7 billion in U.S. government loans and $2.7 billion owed to the Canadian and German governments, and $7.6 billion in other debt. The amount doesn’t include $12.2 billion in notes or preferred stock that will be owed to union retiree health care funds in the U.S. and Canada, GM said. The automaker had $94.7 billion in debt as of July 9, before emerging from bankruptcy. Regional Operations After getting an emergency loan from Germany to prop up the Opel unit in Europe, GM decided this month to keep the division, and the automaker is repaying those funds as well. The European business lost more than $400 million last quarter, GM said. Employment fell 14 percent to 209,000 globally at the end of September, from 243,000 at the end of December, GM said. The U.S. salaried workforce was cut 7 percent to 27,000 in the same period and hourly employees declined 23 percent to 48,000. GM also said it spent $132 million related to 1,700 employees accepting early retirement in the U.S., Germany and Australia. GM has reached closure agreements with 2,042 dealers as of the end of October, the automaker said. In the July 10 through Sept. 30 time frame, GM reported charges of $320 million related to its plan to thin the ranks of its franchisees. Global production fell 17 percent to 1.7 million cars and trucks, from 2.04 million a year earlier, as a decline in North American offset a gain in the rest of the world. Third-quarter revenue was less than the $30.9 billion of Ford Motor Co. , the second-biggest U.S. automaker by unit sales. Market Share GM said it held a 19.5 percent U.S. market share and 11.9 percent globally. Fleet customers such as rental car companies and governments accounted for 25 percent of sales, and North American plant capacity utilization was 53 percent, GM said. The U.S. annualized sales rate will fall to about 10.7 million cars and trucks in the fourth quarter from 11.7 million in the third quarter, in part because of the end of U.S. government vehicle incentives, GM said. Annual industry sales in 2010 should improve to a range of 11 million to 12 million, GM forecast. U.S. deliveries totaled 13.2 million last year, after averaging 16.8 million this decade through 2007. Globally, GM said the sales rate will fall to 65.4 million, this quarter from 67.8 million in the previous quarter and estimated global sales of 62 million to 65 million. To contact the reporters on this story: Katie Merx in Detroit at kmerx@bloomberg.net ; Jeff Green in Southfield, Michigan, at jgreen16@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Feinberg Says He Is `Very Concerned’ Limits on Pay May Lead to Talent Loss

November 12, 2009

By Ian Katz Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) — Kenneth Feinberg , the Obama administration’s special master for executive compensation, said he is “very concerned” about the possibility his pay cuts may drive talent away from companies bailed out by U.S. taxpayers. “Maybe I’ve struck the right balance,” Feinberg said, referring to criticism that he has been too harsh and too easy on executives. “Hopefully some of this will percolate into the private sector, we’ll have to see,” he said today at a Washington conference held by Bloomberg Ventures, a unit of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News. Feinberg has ordered pay cuts averaging 50 percent for the top 25 executives at Citigroup Inc. , Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc. and four other companies that took U.S. bailout money. He will rule on pay structures covering the next 75 highest-paid employees at those firms by year-end. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s investment bank, all exempt from Feinberg’s oversight, will hand out a combined $29.7 billion in bonuses, according to analysts’ estimates. That’s up 60 percent from last year and more than the record $26.8 billion in 2007. The companies are the biggest banks to exit the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “I’ll measure my success, really, if these seven companies repay the taxpayer, that’s really the litmus test,” he said. Feinberg said AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche , who took over the insurer in August, had “expressed his concern that compensation keep his people on board and that the company thrive.” Feinberg told reporters he has met with chief executive “one or two times over the last few months.” AIG’s Benmosche Benmosche yesterday wrote to AIG employees, saying he remains “totally committed” to leading the insurer after media reports suggested he told the board he may step down because U.S. pay caps hurt his ability to retain staff. Benmosche released the letter after the Wall Street Journal said Nov. 10 that he told directors last week he might resign because of U.S. limits on employee compensation. Benmosche, who came out of retirement to lead New York-based AIG, said he is “frustrated” with limits on what the company can pay its top 100 executives. To contact the reporter on this story: Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Health-Care Bill Votes Sought by Democrats as Hoyer Says Delay Possible

November 6, 2009

By James Rowley and Catherine Dodge Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) — Two major lobbying groups boosted the effort to overhaul U.S. health care, endorsing House legislation as Democrats seek to ease some lawmakers’ concerns over abortion and illegal aliens on the eve of a floor debate. President Barack Obama is scheduled to go to Capitol Hill tomorrow to meet with Democrats as they rally support before a House vote. With the vote drawing closer, thousands of protesters gathered at the Capitol yesterday and several were arrested after entering Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Democratic leaders worked to satisfy lawmakers who want assurances the legislation will restrict government financing of abortions or subsidies for undocumented workers. Some Hispanic members said they would be reluctant to vote for the measure if it barred undocumented immigrants from buying insurance on a new online purchasing exchange. Such a provision “would present a serious issue for many” in the Hispanic caucus, said Texas Democrat Charles Gonzalez . The $1.05 trillion legislation would cover 36 million uninsured people and create a government program to compete with private insurers. It would require all Americans to get insurance, set up the new insurance-purchasing exchanges for people who don’t have employer-provided benefits, and provide subsidies to help people buy coverage. Biggest Since Medicare The revamp represents the biggest changes to the nation’s health-care system since the 1965 creation of the Medicare program for the elderly. Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said today he expects the House to complete the legislation tomorrow, though lawmakers have been told to be available next week in case the debate spills over. “We are very close” to a House majority, he said. “Many people still need to get a comfort level that it’s the right thing to do.” He said House members should be able to finish debate tomorrow night, “unless there are delaying tactics employed or something interferes.” Hoyer, who favors allowing undocumented aliens to buy insurance on the exchange, acknowledged widespread public opposition to “people coming into the United States” and getting “services that the taxpayer believes are taxpayer- subsidized services.” AARP, AMA Backing The legislation gained some momentum yesterday when AARP, which represents 40 million seniors, and the American Medical Association each endorsed the measure. Obama said he’s “extraordinarily pleased and grateful” to the organizations, adding that support from two of the groups with significant stakes in the debate means passage of the legislation is more likely. AARP said in a statement it plans to educate its members about the legislation through advertising, phone calls and e- mails. AMA President James Rohack said while it’s “not the perfect bill,” it “goes a long way toward expanding access to high-quality affordable health coverage for all Americans.” At the same time, thousands of placard-waving protesters rallied outside the Capitol yesterday, where Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion activists spoke against the bill. ‘Pelosi-Care’ House Republican Leader John Boehner referred to the legislation as “Pelosi-care,” calling it “the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in 19 years” in Congress. Capitol police arrested four protesters who were charged with unlawful entry into Pelosi’s office in the Cannon building across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Six more people were charged with unlawful conduct in the hallway outside the speaker’s office, and two women were charged with disorderly conduct outside her office, police said. With Republicans unified in opposition, Democrats need 218 votes to pass the bill. “We are probably right at about 218 right now,” Hoyer said yesterday. While the cost of the legislation has also sparked some concern, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would reduce the federal deficit over 10 years by $129 billion, up from an Oct. 29 estimate of $104 billion. The new figure reflects some changes to the measure, including a proposal to block tax credits for the production of fuels from byproducts of pulp-making. Paying for Abortions Democrats opposed to abortion, along with many Republicans, are concerned that lower-income Americans in the proposed health-insurance exchanges could use federal subsidies to pay for abortions. Democratic leaders are trying to line up support for a compromise proposed by one abortion opponent, Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, which would clarify the restrictions, Hoyer said. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it opposes the Ellsworth plan. In a memo to congressional aides, Richard Doerflinger, an official with the group, said the proposal “addresses none of the substantial criticisms” by the bishops or “other pro-life advocates.” Ellsworth said he didn’t think Democratic leaders have the votes yet to pass the legislation. On the issue of illegal aliens, the legislation bars the undocumented immigrants from getting subsidies to purchase private insurance that would go to low-and middle-income people. Illegal immigrants would also be prevented from buying insurance from the government-run insurance plan. Don’t Change Language Some lawmakers still want to prevent the undocumented people from purchasing private coverage on the online exchange. Democrat Nydia Velazquez , chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said that during a meeting with Obama, the president “listened to our concerns.” “We made it very clear that 20 votes in the Hispanic caucus will be supportive” of the current language, Velazquez said. “If the language changes, I guess that he won’t have 20 votes.” House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter , a New York Democrat, said lawmakers for now have no plans to add a provision on illegal immigrants’ ability to purchase insurance on the exchanges. To contact the reporters on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net ; Catherine Dodge in Washington at Cdodge1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Rep. Edolphus Towns: AIG’s Misguided TARP-Funded Bonuses

October 27, 2009

The American people were justifiably outraged when they learned earlier this year that American International Group (AIG) would pay $165 million in bonuses to executives at AIG’s Financial Products Division (AIGFP), the very division that brought the company to its knees. The news came just months after taxpayer dollars funded an $85 billion bailout of AIG last September, followed by more money in October, more again in November and still more in March of this year. In total, the federal government committed $180 billion to save the insurance giant. Not long after the last transfer of $85 million in TARP funds to this company, Federal Reserve officials learned that AIG planned to distribute a total of $1.75 billion in bonuses and other extraordinary compensation throughout the company. Since that time, the American people have been eager to understand how the government failed to prevent these bonus payments from going out the door – payments that were paid out with their taxpayer dollars. The public also wants to know what their government is doing to prevent an episode like this from happening in the future. Recently, I held a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing to better understand why there was not diligent oversight of pay practices at AIG after the company received a multi-billion dollar government funded bailout. Our sole witness for the hearing was the government’s TARP watchdog, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). The SIGTARP completed an audit this month that examined compensation practices at companies that received bailout money, including AIG, and his testimony provided us with an explanation of the findings of his report. We first learned from the SIGTARP that AIG was not always a company that awarded its executives lavish bonuses. The SIGTARP’s audit found that AIG’s compensation used to be weighted toward long-term incentives that were payable only at retirement. In other words, they used the classic “golden handcuffs.” But in 2007, when losses began to mount, AIG’s new management decided to “update” their compensation plans. The golden handcuffs were replaced by golden envelopes. The era of instant gratification had arrived at AIG. In essence, long-term incentives were rejected in favor of risky, short-term gains. We also learned from Mr. Barofsky’s report that the Treasury Department, under former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, abdicated its responsibility to oversee the executive compensation plans at AIG. In fact, Treasury made no independent effort to evaluate the breadth of AIG’s compensation obligations before funneling taxpayer dollars to the company. Not until March 19, 2009, when Secretary Geithner announced a plan to deal with future payments of executive compensation at AIG, did Treasury finally begin to oversee the company’s compensation practices. Therefore, much of the public outcry this spring could have been avoided had Treasury evaluated the compensation packages at AIG from the moment former Secretary Paulson began allocating TARP funds. Widespread outrage at this situation among taxpayers and policymakers has resulted in a number of actions designed by the Obama Administration to rein in executive compensation, particularly at firms receiving TARP funds. On June 10, 2009, the Treasury Department issued its Interim Final Rule on TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance. The most important part of the rule was the creation of the Office of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation. Treasury appointed Kenneth Feinberg as Special Master, who is serving pro bono. Mr. Feinberg already has his hands full. According to the SIGTARP, AIG executives still believe that $200 million dollars in bonuses – or so-called retention payments – should be paid to them without regard to the company’s performance and without repaying the government in full. News reports indicate that Mr. Feinberg is having trouble convincing AIG to reduce those payments. This does not surprise me. I look forward to hearing directly from Mr. Feinberg tomorrow, Wednesday, October 28th, when he will testify before our Committee about his review of executive compensation at TARP recipient companies, including his decision last week to slash compensation for the top 25 executives at the seven largest bailout companies (AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial, General Motors and GMAC) that have not repaid the taxpayers.

Read the full article →

Mark Fisher On Morning Meeting: Taxpayers Need To Get "Their Pound Of Flesh" From Bailout Banks

October 26, 2009

On today’s Morning Meeting , Dylan Ratigan took on the issue of bailouts for the few banks anointed as “too big to fail” with Mark Fisher, founder of MBF Asset Management LLC and author of a recent op-ed for Bloomberg entitled “How the U.S. Blew Trillion-Dollar Trade of Century.” That article formed the jump-off for a discussion on the lack of return on investment for the taxpayers, who shoveled their wealth into the hole Wall Street dug for itself: RATIGAN: Mark, now, you write in here, what trader in his right mind decides to dump his money into a glorfied black hole — and you are basically talking from the perspective of the U.S. government last fall — taking on unlimited risk in the process for miniscule returns? The argument the government would make is, “Listen, we had no choice but to dump our money into a glorified black hole, take on unlimited risk in the process for miniscule returns because we didn’t have any sort of resolution. We did not have any other alternative.” Do you buy the we-had-no-choice argument for this incredible delivery of money? FISHER: I buy the argument that the government had no choice but to do what it did. And it’s very easy for you and I to sit here today and say, “Why’d you do that?” But having done that, somebody should have had the presence of mind to say, okay, if we going to go ahead and bail out the banks, if we are going to go ahead and prevent the domino theory — RATIGAN: And the cascade of collapse from top to bottom, last fall– FISHER: We need to get our pound of flesh. RATIGAN: We being the government and the taxpayer stepping in with taxpayer money. FISHER: The taxpayer, yes. RATIGAN: How does the taxpayer get their pound of flesh, because I think where you see the protest mark in Chicago or you talk to people on the street, rich people or poor people, white people and black people, we all know what has happened has been unfair. FISHER: Well, I think it is unfair because they didn’t get their pound of flesh. If when this bailout took place, if the government would have said, okay, we now own 30% of the profits of every single firm we are helping out, I don’t think you would see the riots in the streets. All of this calls to mind a blistering article penned by Mark Pittman in Bloomberg back in January: Henry Paulson’s bank bailouts, done under “great stress” during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, failed to win for U.S. taxpayers what Warren Buffett received for his shareholders by investing in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The Treasury secretary made 174 purchases of banks’ preferred shares that include warrants to buy stock at a later date. While he invested $10 billion in Goldman Sachs in October, twice as much as Buffett did the month before, Paulson gained certificates worth one-fourth as much as the billionaire, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The Goldman Sachs terms were repeated in most of the other bank bailouts. “If Paulson was still an employee of Goldman Sachs and he’d done this deal, he would have been fired,” (said Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001). Buffett received 43.5 million Goldman Sachs warrants valued at $82.18 apiece on the date of the transaction, or $3.6 billion, Bloomberg analytics show. Paulson, who served as the New York-based bank’s chief executive officer until 2006, injected twice as much taxpayer money into Goldman Sachs a month later and got 12.2 million warrants worth $72.33 each, or $882 million. Paulson picked his winner, and it wasn’t us. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]

Read the full article →

Daniel Gross: Why Wall Street Bonuses Will Continue to Exceed Profits

October 23, 2009

This year, compensation will again eat up something close to a majority of Wall Street’s revenues. And while Goldman and Morgan Stanley have paid back their bailout funds, other large bonus dispensers still owe huge sums of money to the public. Every dollar they pay out in compensation is one fewer they can pay back the taxpayer. Wall Street’s structure may have changed a great deal in the past year, but its culture has proved remarkably resistant to change. The recession didn’t alter this custom. And neither will the public opprobrium, the disapproval of President Obama, or the threat of Federal Reserve oversight. Come December and January, we will continue to be shocked by the level of bonuses — and Wall Street will continue to be shocked that we’re shocked.

Read the full article →

Executive Pay Cuts at Bailed-Out Firms Stoke Debate on Washington’s Reach

October 22, 2009

By Julianna Goldman, Ian Katz and Robert Schmidt Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration slammed Wall Street by ordering pay cuts by an average of 50 percent and caps on benefits for top executives at companies owing the government billions of dollars from taxpayer-funded bailouts. The news triggered debate about the government’s reach into private industry, whether pay reductions would spread to other companies and if a talent drain from U.S. firms would ensue. Others cheered the move. “I don’t think there will be any charity cases on Wall Street,” said Representative Barney Frank , 69, a Democrat from Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in a telephone interview. “This is a very good thing.” Executives at seven companies including New York-based Citigroup Inc. and Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. will have their pay cut by an average of 50 percent after months of negotiations with Kenneth R. Feinberg , 63, the U.S. special master on compensation, according to people familiar with the matter. The cash portion of salaries for the 25 highest-paid employees will be slashed 90 percent under Feinberg’s review, which will be released as early as today, according to one person familiar with the talks. Some cash will be replaced by shares that employees will be restricted from selling immediately, another person said. ‘Slam Dunk’ The administration, mindful of popular anger over Wall Street bonuses and risk taking that sparked the worst financial crisis in seven decades, responded favorably to Feinberg’s work. “The president put Ken Feinberg in place in order to be an advocate for taxpayers and it appears that Feinberg is doing what the president put him in place to do,” said Bill Burton , a White House spokesman. Some compensation experts said that the moves would drive talent out of U.S. financial institutions when their expertise was most needed. “The government is acting like the owner they are, and they’re a pretty ticked-off owner,” said Steven Hall , managing director of New York-based compensation consultant Steven Hall & Partners LLC. “The fear is, will this make people throw up their hands and say, ‘I have to leave’?” Politicians disagreed. “It’s about time that somebody stands up to these folks we bailed out,” Representative Elijah Cummings , a Maryland Democrat, said in a phone interview. “They seem to have forgotten that they would not have jobs in many instances if it were not for taxpayers.” ‘Main Street’ Main Street hasn’t forgotten, noted Charlie Cook , publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington. According to a recent poll conducted by Hart Research for the Economic Policy Institute, 54 percent of Americans said that “Wall Street investment companies” have benefited the most from the government’s stimulus efforts. Only 10 percent said their family has felt significant benefits. “It would be a mistake for the financial sector to underestimate the depth and breadth of this anger,” Cook said. “Politically it’s a slam dunk for the administration,” said Dan Schnur , who was communications director of Republican Senator John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign. “As the administration takes on the CEOs of these companies this forcefully, even if it’s a relatively limited number of companies, the voters are going to react very positively.” Other Republicans said the administration shouldn’t have bailed out banks in the first place. “I hope taxpayers realize that the only way they ever end up subsidizing offensive executive salaries is when the government bails out the executives and the companies they run in the first place,” Representative Jeb Hensarling , 52, a Texas Republican and member of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel, said in a statement. ‘Political Pressure’ Feinberg, who was special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, was named to the Obama administration pay position in June following public outrage over reports in March that New York-based American International Group paid $165 million in bonuses to employees of the derivatives unit. While some consultants who advise companies on pay issues said Feinberg was being too aggressive, political analysts and lawmakers said the administration’s efforts to curb pay are appropriate. “I suspect that the government is responding to building political pressure because Wall Street has found its stride again,” said Jeff Davis, an analyst at FTN Equity Capital Markets. “Pay is going to be huge at previously TARPed institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan.” “They’re responding to a building political firestorm in Congress,” Davis said. “As much as the Street wrings its hands about the government setting things like pay, once you take the government’s money, you got into that bed.” ‘Poaching Attempts’ To be sure, the administration’s role in corporate governance could jeopardize the government’s own investments in these companies. Some analysts warned that top performers at firms like Citigroup, in which the U.S. has a 34 percent stake, could jump to competitors that don’t operate under the same restrictions. With steep pay reductions, “we will be cutting off the taxpayer’s noses to spite their faces,” said Robert Profusek , a partner at Jones Day in New York. “This slash-and-burn approach is, in my view, incredibly short-sighted.” ‘Strong Position’ “They have taken a very strong position,” said Gerald Rosenfeld , deputy chairman of Rothschild Inc. and co-director of New York University’s Business and Law program. “There are going to be a lot of active poaching attempts, most likely by European banks. This certainly is going to be a problem for Citigroup and Bank of America.” Stephen Cohen , Citigroup spokesman, declined to comment, as did Scott Silvestri , a spokesman for Bank of America. Citigroup shares closed unchanged at $4.42 in New York Stock Exchange trading. Bank of America closed down 2.9 percent at $16.51. In addition to compensation at Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG, Feinberg is overseeing pay at Auburn Hills, Michigan- based Chrysler Group LLC, Chrysler Financial Corp., Detroit- based General Motors Co. and GMAC Inc. The automakers might escape the same level of cuts, according to David Cole , chairman for the Center for Automotive Research, who noted that the auto executives are paid less than those of banks. Feinberg’s review went beyond paychecks. Benefits such as limousine service and use of a company’s aircraft valued at more than $25,000 must be approved by him, the people said. Some companies, including AIG, have already exceeded that limit and will have to pay back the difference to the U.S. Treasury, according to one person familiar with the negotiations. AIG Employees of AIG’s derivatives unit, blamed for insurer’s near-collapse last year, will be limited to $200,000 in total pay, one person said. Feinberg’s report also will urge AIG executives who have pledged to return their bonuses to honor that commitment, one person familiar with the matter said yesterday. In the last few weeks, Feinberg has sent signals that he was willing rein in Wall Street practices under his jurisdiction. Citigroup on Oct. 9 agreed to sell its Phibro LLC energy- trading unit to avoid a potential showdown with Feinberg over a $100 million pay package for Andrew Hall , the unit’s CEO. Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis , at Feinberg’s urging, agreed last week to give up his 2009 salary and bonus. “If Wall Street doesn’t like it, they can give the money back,” said Democratic strategist Steve McMahon . “If they see a passing ship with better financial prospects, I’m sure they’ll jump anyway whether there’s government money involved or not.” To contact the reporters on this story: Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net ; Julianna Goldman in Washington at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net ; Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Alan Schram: Financial Crisis Worked Out Well for Goldman Sachs

October 15, 2009

Goldman Sachs reported its earnings today. For the quarter, profits from trading and principal investment were $10.03 billion, up from $2.7 billion for the same quarter last year. A year ago the company was saved by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who intervened on its behalf. So it is interesting, to say the least, that last year’s flirt with disaster turned out to be so great for Goldman Sachs. Now that they are a regular commercial bank they actually trade more, which makes sense: if the US Treasury covered my losses, I would also be happy to take major risks. And they can lever up, since much of their assets are valued at what Goldman says they are worth. What’s more, compensation is up to $17 billion so far this year, up from $11 billion during the same period last year. That is $527,000 per employee, up 46% from last year’s figure. I don’t resent them that, since every Goldman employee I ever came in contact with was bright, competent and professional, so they probably deserve it. Yet curiously, the financial crisis seemed to have worked out fairly well for Goldman. They are still a very large, highly levered (16:1) company, where half the profits go the employees (vs. 20% of the profits in a typical hedge fund), and if anything goes wrong, the tax payer steps in to take care of it. I also find it interesting that they still measure risk by VaR (Value at Risk). That “measurement” proved to be worthless last year, because VaR presents potential losses under normal circumstances. Of course the only time you really need your risk controls is exactly when the results are abnormal, outside the Gaussian curve. The ONLY concern for risk managers should be that tail event, the 50 year flood. But their models exclude those, and this is precisely why Goldman teetered on the brink last year, and may need the taxpayer to backstop them again some day. Alan Schram is the Managing Partner of Wellcap Partners, a Los Angeles based investment firm. Email at aschram@wellcappartners.com.

Read the full article →