treasury

menafn.com…

(MENAFN – Qatar News Agency) US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will begin a trip to China and Japan on Tuesday to discuss new sanctions on Iran. Geithner will arrive in China late on Tuesday …

Excerpt from:
US Treasury Secretary Begins Trip to China and Japan

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

{ 0 comments }

menafn.com…

(MENAFN) Australia’s Federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said that in order for the country’s banking sector to become more competitive, the treasury declared the new “tick and flick” service, a banking …

Read more:
Australia to implement banking reforms

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

{ 0 comments }

Debt Ceiling Deadline Might Be August 10, Not August 2: Report

July 23, 2011

For months, markets have been girding themselves against the possibility that the U.S. will reach the limits of its borrowing ability on August 2 and default on its debts. But researchers at Barclays Capital think the real deadline may not be until a week later. In a note published Friday, the Barclays Interest Rates Research team wrote that “the date on which the Treasury will run out of cash to pay its obligations might not be August 2; it might be around August 10 instead.” Why the change? The note explains that previous projections showed the Treasury running out of money on the morning of Wednesday, August 3. On that day, it was predicted, the Treasury would need to spend $32 billion, including $22 billion in Social Security payments — and it was only projected to have $30 billion at its disposal. That projection was made on July 13. But since then, the researchers say, the Treasury has taken in about $14 billion more than expected, and paid out about $1 billion less than expected. Hence, the deadline date might actually be August 10, a week later than previously believed. The August 2 deadline has never been set in stone. When Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced in May that the federal debt limit had been reached, he said that the government could use “extraordinary measures” to extend borrowing authority until August 2 — and that this date could change “based on government receipts and other factors.” And as the Financial Times pointed out earlier this month, researchers at Nomura have already predicted that the Treasury won’t run out of funds until August 9. The August 10 date isn’t set in stone either; it’s just the prediction of one group of researchers. The Barclays team stress that “it is extremely difficult to be sure” how much money the Treasury will take in and pay out between now and August 2. And, they say, just because lawmakers might have until August 10 to devise a deal doesn’t mean they should wait that long. “The sooner policymakers come to a deal, the sooner this source of uncertainty will disappear,” they write. As of Friday evening, negotiations between President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner had broken down , with Boehner saying he would confer with Senate leaders directly. The president has called Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to the White House for an emergency meeting Saturday morning.

Read the full article →

Too Big To Fail, Or Too Trifling For Oversight?

June 12, 2011

It is not very often that business people head to Washington to explain how unimportant they are. But over the last several months, executives from more than two dozen financial companies and their trade groups have paraded into the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and other government agencies to try to persuade top regulators that they are not large or risky enough to threaten the financial system if they should ever collapse.

Read the full article →

House Votes Against Raising Debt Ceiling

June 1, 2011

WASHINGTON — House Republicans dealt defeat to their own proposal for a $2.4 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit Tuesday, a political gambit designed to reinforce a demand for spending cuts to accompany any increase in government borrowing. The vote was lopsided, with just 97 in favor of the measure and 318 against. House Democrats accused the GOP of political demagoguery, while the Obama administration maneuvered to avoid taking sides – or giving offense to majority Republicans. The debate was brief, occasionally impassioned and set a standard of sorts for public theater, particularly at a time when private negotiations continue among the administration and key lawmakers on the deficit cuts Republicans have demanded. The bill “will and must fail,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who noted he had helped write the very measure he was criticizing. “I consider defeating an unconditional increase to be a success, because it sends a clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in America’s affection for deficit spending,” he said. But Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., accused Republicans of a “ploy so egregious that (they) have had to spend the last week pleading with Wall Street not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery.” He and other Democrats added that Republicans were attempting to draw attention away from their controversial plan to turn Medicare into a program in which seniors purchase private insurance coverage. The proceedings occurred roughly two months before the date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said the debt limit must be raised. If no action is taken by Aug. 2, he has warned, the government could default on its obligations and risk turmoil that might plunge the nation into another recession or even an economic depression. Republicans, who are scheduled to meet with Obama at the White House on Wednesday, signaled in advance that the debt limit vote did not portend a final refusal to grant an increase. The roll call vote was held late in the day, and there was little, if any discernible impact on Wall Street, where major exchanges showed gains for the day. At the same time, it satisfied what GOP officials said was a desire among the rank and file to vote against unpopular legislation the leadership has said eventually must pass in some form. Republicans said they were offering legislation Obama and more than 100 Democratic lawmakers had sought. But Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat, accused the GOP of staging a “demagogic vote” at a time lawmakers should work together to avoid a financial default. All 97 votes in favor of the measure were cast by Democrats, totaling less than a majority and far under the two-thirds support needed for passage. For its part, the administration appeared eager to avoid criticizing Republicans. “It’s fine, it’s fine,” presidential press secretary Jay Carney said when asked about the Republican decision to tie spending cuts with more borrowing. “We believe they should not be linked because there is no alternative that’s acceptable to raising the debt ceiling. But we’re committed to reducing the deficit,” Carney said. The government has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, $14.3 trillion, and the Treasury is using a series of extraordinary maneuvers to meet financial obligations. By no longer would making investments in two big pension funds for federal workers and beginning to withdraw current investments, for example, the Treasury created $214 billion in additional borrowing headroom. At the same time, the Obama administration and congressional leaders are at work trying to produce a deficit-reduction agreement in excess of $1 trillion to meet Republican demands for spending cuts. Political maneuvering on legislation to raise the debt limit has become common in recent years, as federal deficits have soared and presidents of both political parties have been forced to seek authority to borrow additional trillions of dollars. Because such legislation is unpopular with voters, presidents generally look to lawmakers from their own political party to provide the votes needed for passage. In the current case, though, Republicans control the House, and without at least some support from them, Obama’s request for a debt-limit increase would fail. However, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced months ago that he would demand spending cuts as a condition for passage. “It’s true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible,” he said on May 9 in a speech to the Economic Club of New York. “But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt limit without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and to reform the budget process.” He added that any spending cuts should be larger than the increase in borrowing authority, a statement meant to lay down a marker for the deficit-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden. Few details have emerged from those negotiations, although Biden said recently the negotiators had made progress. He expressed confidence they would be able to agree on specific cuts in excess of $1 trillion over the next decade, and then look to procedural mechanisms known as “triggers” to force further automatic deficit cuts adding up to another $3 trillion or so. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a participant in the talks, said afterward, “I am confident that we can achieve over a trillion dollars in savings at this point, and hopefully more.” Earlier, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., had said the discussions centered on deficit cuts totaling in the range of $150 billion to $200 billion over a decade, but that was from a relatively small category of programs. Among the areas eyed for spending cuts is the federal pension program, where the White House has signaled it is receptive to a Republican proposal for employees to make greater contributions. ___ Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor and Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Jagadeesh Gokhale: Confused Thinking on Social Security

May 27, 2011

Is Social Security a program that is independent of the federal budget (“off budget”) or one that is intimately linked to the federal budget (the “unified budget” perspective)? Writers on Social Security appear to constantly switch between the two alternative perspectives on the program’s finances, which ends up confusing rather than illuminating readers. Allan Sloan’s recent column in the Washington Post is a case in point. Mr. Sloan writes that We can make the trust fund as big as we want by putting in general revenues, as we’re doing this year, or by simply stuffing new Treasury securities into it [ Note: "unified budget" perspective here ]. But the cash flow shortages [ "off budget" perspective here ] tell us that Social Security’s problems are now in the present, not in the future [ No, references to cash-flow shortages are valid only under the "off-budget" perspective. But under it, the Trust Funds are meaningful as Social Security assets, which implies that the problem is not in the present ]. A $2.6 trillion trust fund stuffed with Treasury securities makes a lot of people feel good [ "off budget" perspective here ]. But no matter how big the trust fund is, the cash flow deficit means taxpayers are going to have to borrow — heavily — to cover beneficiaries’ checks [ "unified budget" perspective here ]. The trust fund is now irrelevant in financial terms [ "unified budget" perspective here ], although it retains moral and some legal force. Cash is king. As always. Cash is not king, confusion is. If Social Security is viewed as an “off budget” program, its Trust Fund represents a valid funding source. It consists of trust fund loans to the federal government of past surplus payroll taxes that the federal government will repay with “full faith and credit.” Since the program’s payroll and other tax revenues are dedicated to it, its financial condition and sustainability can be judged by comparing projected revenues plus the trust fund’s value with projected Social Security benefits. Under the “off budget” perspective, even if dedicated revenues are falling short of promised benefits, that “cash flow shortfall” is not a problem because the trust fund (which equals the federal government’s liability to Social Security) will allow benefit payments to continue under current laws for a long time — until 2036 under the Trustees’ latest projections. The program’s past payroll tax surpluses were, by law, invested in special issue Treasury securities, which can be redeemed to pay for benefits when revenues from dedicated taxes fall short of promised benefits. But when pundits such as Mr. Sloan mention the possibility of providing ” new ” federal transfers to Social Security — beyond redemptions of the existing trust fund — the “off-budget” attribute is negated and the “unified budget” perspective becomes relevant; under the latter, Social Security is one among equals across the entire slate of federal government programs and the term “cash flow shortfall” is rendered meaningless. “New” government transfers can plug any holes in dedicated taxes relative to benefit outlays. In that case it is not valid to question whether government transfers would “solve” the program’s “cash flow shortfall” as Mr. Sloan does. They will, by construction. Under the unified budget perspective, the only valid “cash flow shortfall” is the federal government’s annual deficit. Note that the Social Security Trust Funds are not financially irrelevant — even under the “unified budget” perspective because they authorize the automatic payment of promised benefits despite the “cash flow shortfall” of dedicated revenues compared to promised benefits. Thus, they provide fodder for liberals to argue that there’s no need to reform the system for another couple of decades. According to the Trustees, if the federal government simply owed Social Security about $21 trillion rather than the $2.6 trillion it owes today, there would be no long-term funding problem for Social Security under the “off-budget” perspective. Liberals would love to see policymakers simply make that ledger entry granting the required spending authority to Social Security. (And it would have the added benefit of putting Mr. Sloan out of the business of sowing confusion in people’s minds.) But perhaps a different ledger entry would achieve even more: Let us recognize that past excess payroll taxes relative to benefit outlays (past Trust Fund surpluses under the “off budget” perspective) have been spent on other government programs. Grants of additional spending authority for Social Security must ultimately be paid out of today’s and future taxpayer resources so making them whole is not really possible. Let us also recognize that the provision of such grants — which now increasingly appear in Social Security reform proposals — makes the “off budget” perspective economically irrelevant. Note that this is different from saying that the Trust Funds themselves are irrelevant. So policymakers should be encouraged to make the reverse ledger entry — to simply wipe out the Trust Funds entirely. That change might deliver the sorely needed sense of urgency to the debate on Social Security reforms — as is currently happening for Medicare which has very few government IOU’s in its trust fund.

Read the full article →

AIG Share Sale Makes A Profit For U.S. Treasury

May 25, 2011

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Clare Baldwin and Pedro da Costa) – The U.S. Treasury made a small profit when it sold a portion of its shares in American International Group Inc on Tuesday, but it was unclear how its investment in the beleaguered insurer will ultimately fare. The shares were sold for $29 apiece, just above the $28.73 average price the Treasury will need to break even on its record bailout of AIG during the financial crisis. But the sale price was at only a 1.6 percent discount to Tuesday’s closing price, which could prove scant comfort to investors who have watched AIG shares plummet 40 percent since the beginning of the year. Tuesday’s $8.7 billion stock offering, which included 200 million shares sold by the Treasury and 100 million sold by AIG itself, is far smaller than the $10 billion to $20 billion deal some banking sources had suggested earlier this year, hinting at a potential lack of investor interest. To be sure, Treasury and AIG only agreed earlier this month on the size of the offer, and the U.S. government did not make its investments in AIG with the intention of turning a profit. Rather, it acquired the stock under extreme duress, as the potential failure of the insurance giant threatened to exacerbate an already severe financial crisis in late 2008. “We’re hopeful that we can recover all the investment that we made,” Tim Massad, the Treasury’s acting secretary for financial stability said during a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. The extent of the profits or losses will not be known until Treasury fully exits its investment, a landmark event for which there is no specific timetable, Massad said. Following an agreed “lock-up” period of 120 days, Treasury will continue to reduce its holdings “in an orderly fashion.” “We’re going to sell in a way to maximize value to the taxpayer,” Massad said. So far, Treasury has raised $5.8 billion of the $47.5 billion it needs to break even on the equity portion of its investment. Treasury cut its stake in AIG from 92 percent, but, by far remains the majority shareholder, with 77 percent. It has another 1.5 billion shares to sell. HOW QUICKLY, AND AT WHAT PRICE? AIG’s share sale is important for the U.S. government, which is trying to sell out of multiple investments it made in companies during the financial crisis. The bailouts were highly unpopular, especially after it became known that top managers in the same AIG unit that drove the company into a rut had continued to pay themselves handsome bonuses while receiving taxpayers’ help. The AIG share sale is also a key moment for Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche. Benmosche, who became AIG’s fifth CEO in less than five years in August 2009, halted a plan to break the company up in a fire sale of its parts. He instead embarked on a revival centered around two core businesses: U.S. life insurer SunAmerica and global property insurer Chartis. Other businesses were sold, taken public or left to operate with a view toward an eventual sale. AIG was literally minutes from bankruptcy when it was rescued in September 2008. The various iterations of the rescue package ended up being worth $182 billion, dwarfing various other bailouts around the world during the financial crisis. The question now is how quickly the U.S. government exits its investment and whether it ultimately breaks even. Benmosche has said he expects the government to be out of its AIG position by mid-2012. Fitch Ratings said recently its own models for the company assume the government is out by the end of 2012. (Additional reporting by Ben Berkowitz; Editing by Gary Hill and Erica Billingham) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

UK Plans World’s First State-Backed Green Investment Bank

May 23, 2011

LONDON — The British government outlined plans for the world’s first state-backed green investment bank on Monday – a key plank of its pledge to transition the country into a low-carbon economy. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the bank will open for business next April and will likely focus initially on investing in areas such as offshore wind, waste and non-domestic energy efficiency. The bank will be capitalized with an initial 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) from the Treasury coffers but will be given independence from the Treasury and will be able to borrow in the capital markets and from the private sector from April 2015. Clegg said he expects the bank to have injected some 15 billion pounds into the green economy within four years. “The bank is intended to bridge the gap between venture capital and the green economy, provide the finance for low-carbon infrastructure and lay the foundation for long-term, balanced growth,” said Clegg, the leader of the junior Liberal Democrats party in the Conservative-led coalition government. “The green investment bank will go from an idea to a flow of investment in under two years, and quickly grow into an independent investing, and then borrowing, institution,” he added, noting it was an “an extraordinary political commitment” at a time the government is axing billions of dollars of spending to cut heavy national debt. Clegg said the global market for low-carbon and environmental goods and services was worth 3.2 trillion pounds in 2008/09, and is forecast to continue to show strong growth. Many countries around the world have a development bank, but Britain will be first to have a national bank dedicated to the green economy. The plans announced by Clegg make some key concessions for critics who had feared the bank would be too tightly controlled by the Treasury, which had argued for the bank to be allowed only to borrow from the government. Campaigners argued that if the bank was not allowed to borrow from the capital markets, it would be unable to deliver the necessary investment in low-carbon technology. Clegg said the bank will have full operational independence “as soon as possible.” And it will have borrowing powers from April 2015 as long as targets for reducing government debt have been met. Greenpeace executive director John Sauven welcomed the government’s commitment to the bank’s independence, but said that it will be “hamstrung from the outset by keeping the restriction on borrowing powers until at least 2015.” John Cridland, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said the bank must deliver certainty for investors if it is to generate the scale and pace of investment needed to shift the UK to a low-carbon economy. Cridland, who has forecast that 450 billion pounds of investment is needed by 2025 to bring green jobs and opportunities to Britain, warned the bank “won’t work if it needs the Treasury’s permission to blow its nose.” “The bank needs to be able to get into the markets itself and do what it’s intended to do,” he added.

Read the full article →

Republicans Question Debt Armageddon Warnings On Debt

May 19, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Would it really be such a big deal if the United States couldn’t pay its bills? As Washington searches for a budget deal that would give lawmakers political cover to sign off on further borrowing, some Republicans are questioning the Obama administration’s warnings of fiscal Armageddon if Congress does not raise the federal government’s debt limit in a timely manner. Their stance suggests the battle over taxes and spending could last well beyond the early August deadline set by the administration, forcing the government to make difficult choices about which bills to pay on time. The United States reached the legal limits of its borrowing authority on Monday, and the Treasury Department has urged Congress to increase the $14.29 trillion ceiling before August 2, when it predicts it will exhaust other methods for paying its obligations. Failure to act could bring on a second recession and roil markets worldwide, Treasury officials have said. But as Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, push for deep spending cuts as the price of any debt-ceiling hike, many of them say Wall Street would understand if Washington didn’t get a deal done by then. “The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse,” House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said in Richmond, according to the Washington Post. “I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform.” Because the government is taking in more than enough tax revenue to service its outstanding debt, the argument goes, the Treasury Department would be able to service its debt even if it ran out of money to pay all of its obligations. Some argue that investors might not be upset even if the government missed a few bond payments. “Failure to raise the debt limit for an extended period of time would be disruptive,” U.S. Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, said at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s very important that we also remember that this is not a catastrophic default. A disruptive series of events is not the same as a catastrophe.” Toomey said the debt limit would have to be raised eventually and challenged the administration to tell investors that it will make debt service a priority in the meantime. DIFFICULT CHOICES The Obama administration is taking the talk seriously. Administration officials on Wednesday handed out a stack of letters dating back to the 1980s, warning of the dire consequences of putting off a debt-limit increase. A senior administration official questioned whether bond buyers would continue to pay low rates for government debt while the country was breaking leases on buildings and railroads and deciding what would go unpaid. “Who’s buying our debt in those auctions while we are defaulting on other obligations?” the official said. “The slippery slope of deciding every day what you would pay and what you wouldn’t pay is an impossible exercise.” Treasury would face some difficult choices if the ceiling were not raised by the time it runs out of financing options. The government is projected to collect enough taxes to cover about 60 percent of its expenses this year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That could easily cover the projected $213 billion in interest costs but would still leave the government far short of the money it needed to pay for everything else — from wars to student loans. Toomey’s view is catching on with other Republicans. The head of a group of 174 conservative lawmakers in the House said on Monday that failure to raise the debt ceiling would not bring on a default but only force Congress to prioritize its spending. “The only thing forcing a default would be Treasury Secretary Geithner allowing such a catastrophe to take place,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller told the Wall Street Journal he was more worried that Washington would fail to reach a long-term budget deal to keep debt under control than the prospect of a few days of missed bond payments. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Tuesday that Druckenmiller’s comments “captured our feeling pretty well” and echoed sentiments he heard from others. “If a bond holder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four, what is more important (is) that you’re putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on,” Ryan said on CNBC. Dan Ripp, an analyst with securities firm Bradley Woods, said bond markets would likely remain calm if the Treasury Department was forced to issue IOUs to federal employees or cut back on Medicare payments to doctors as long as it continued to make its debt payments. But the country’s credit rating could permanently suffer if Treasury was forced to miss bond payments as it would blemish a perfect repayment record that goes back more than 200 years. “When you have a perfect record and then it’s not perfect, you can’t go back to perfect again,” Ripp said. (Additional reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Caren Bohan, Paul Simao and Todd Eastham) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

White House: No Alternative To Raising Debt Ceiling

May 18, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House said on Wednesday that there is no “Plan B” if Congress does not vote to increase the debt limit by August. The debt limit, which is currently set at $14.29 trillion, was reached on Monday, but Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress the government can continue to pay its debts until about Aug. 2 by using “extraordinary measures.” If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by then, there is no plan in place for dealing with the resulting defaults, a senior administration official said in a briefing with reporters. “There is no alternative to raising the debt limit. It has to be raised,” the official, who spoke to the reporters on background, said. “There’s really no way around it.” The White House is pushing back against a few Republicans — including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) — who hinted this week the government could default on its debts for a short time in pursuit of a broader deal to cut the deficit. Republicans have overall agreed that the debt ceiling needs to be raised but have said they will not vote to raise the ceiling unless it is paired with major spending cuts and long-term debt reduction. But some fear that talks to reach that deal, which are being facilitated by Vice President Joe Biden, will last beyond the Aug. 2 deadline for increasing the debt limit. A few Republicans have said extending talks beyond that deadline could be done without serious harm to the markets as long as a deal was eventually reached to raise the debt ceiling. Toomey, speaking on Wednesday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, pointed to a weekend interview in the Wall Street Journal with investor Stanley Druckenmiller, who said he would accept late payments on U.S. debts if it meant overall progress on the long-term deficit. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who is representing Senate Republicans in the White House debt limit talks, also referenced the editorial when speaking with reporters on Tuesday. Ryan made a similar remark Tuesday, telling CNBC the investors he speaks to would be willing to accept late payments “for a day or two or three or four.” The White House firmly rejected such an idea in the Wednesday briefing, saying even short-term default would harm the government’s credit and its reputation in the markets. “That’s not a plan; that’s default,” the official said. As lawmakers continue to push for a deal on the debt, the Treasury will continue to function by taking steps to “buy head room” within the current deficit, said a senior administration official. Earlier this month, the Treasury stopped providing State and Local Government Series Treasury securities, which help state and local governments to manage their debt. After reaching the debt limit Monday, the Treasury began using additional measures to avoid default. Geithner declared a “debt issuance suspension period” on Monday to borrow from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. The fund will be made whole after the debt limit increase is enacted, according to law. The Treasury will continue some business as usual, including maintaining its auction schedule to issue new bonds. The administration rejected the idea of selling off assets to buy time for the debt ceiling deal, arguing it would amount to a “fire sale” where assets would likely be sold for less than their true value. “The idea of dumping gold on the market would be extremely damaging,” a senior official said, while another official added that most assets do not have enough value to buy the government much time. Despite rhetoric over raising the debt ceiling by some lawmakers, Geithner is confident the debt limit will eventually be increased, an official said. “They always seem extremely challenging, but they seem to get there,” an official said.

Read the full article →

CBO: Boehner’s Math Is Wrong, Budget Deal Will Cut Less Than Half Of What Was Promised

May 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — The big spending bill passed into law with much fanfare last month will cut the deficit by $122 billion over the next decade – less than half of what top lawmakers promised at the time – the government reported Monday. Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had touted the legislation as reducing the deficit by more than $300 billion over a ten-year span. His prediction was based on an analysis by a Senate aide that the $38 billion in cuts this year would translate into $315 billion over a decade. But the Congressional Budget Office, the closest thing to an official referee, said Monday the cuts add up to much less. Released the same day the Treasury Department announced that the government has reached the $14.3 trillion legal limit on its ability to borrow money, the CBO study illustrates the difficulty in cutting the deficit, especially for the immediate future. Treasury has the ability to juggle the books to avoid a default for now, but legislation to lift the so-called debt limit is going to have to include significantly greater cuts than the spending bill last month. The budget office also said the compromise negotiated between Boehner and President Barack Obama actually increases the deficit this year by $3.2 billion, because of military spending. At issue is a $1.2 trillion spending measure enacted after weeks of difficult talks. Republicans had initially rammed through the House a tougher version that cut more than $60 billion this year, when compared to 2010 spending levels. But the immediate budget-cutting punch turns out to be far less, partly because the government’s fiscal year is more than half over. The final version included $25 billion in cuts to domestic agency budgets. It also contained a host of curbs to programs like federal highway funding and health care for children of lower-income families that will hardly generate any deficit savings, CBO said. A previous CBO study had predicted that the $38 billion in cuts to non-war accounts would generate just $352 million in savings through the Sept. 30 end of the 2011 budget year. That caused consternation in GOP ranks. At one point passage of the measure appeared imperiled because of disillusionment among tea party-backed lawmakers, already disappointed the cuts weren’t bigger. That prompted Boehner to highlight a study by a Senate Budget Committee GOP staff aide, which used earlier CBO data to predict the spending bill would cut outlays by $252 billion over the decade and that the actual deficit savings would grow to $315 billion once reduced interest costs were added on. The budget office doesn’t say how much the measure would reduce interest costs.

Read the full article →

Video: Shellady Explains Gross’s U.S. 10-Year Notes Strategy: Video

May 13, 2011

May 13 (Bloomberg) — Scott Shellady, manager of fixed income at XFA Futures, talks about Bill Gross’s trading strategy for 10-year Treasury notes. Gross runs the world’s biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management Co. Shellady talks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

With Debt Ceiling In Sight, Regulators Continue Dire Warnings

May 13, 2011

The federal government is scheduled to reach the debt limit Monday, and with no deal yet struck, top economic officials are warning lawmakers of the consequences of inaction. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a Senate committee Thursday that a failure to raise the debt ceiling could lead to a devastating financial crisis, as he reiterated the argument that he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have been making for months. A default would be a “black swan event,” so rare that it’s impossible to fully predict the potentially disastrous consequences, argues a new study leaked by Politico . The two sides in the debt ceiling debate seem to be hardening, rather than bridging, their differences. Republican lawmakers expressed increased skepticism that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have serious consequences, while top economic officials repeated the argument that this legislative inaction could lead to a default and spark a worldwide economic disaster. “The worst outcome would be one in which the financial system would again destabilize,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee, saying such an event “would have extremely dire consequences for the U.S. economy.” The U.S. government must continuously borrow money to pay principal and interest on older debt, which means that if it is barred from borrowing above a limit, it risks defaulting on some of its loans. A missed debt payment, which Getihner said could happen by August 2 if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, would send panic through financial markets around the globe, as what is considered the world’s safest investment would become compromised, independent economists say. A default would likely touch off a financial crisis worse than the one the county is still recovering from, Geithner told Congress last month. Since it appears that no deal will be struck before Monday, the Treasury is expected to initiate the second phase of the program of “extraordinary measures,” designed to keep the government out of default. Earlier this month, the Treasury stopped issuing special securities designed to help cities and states manage their debt. Starting Monday, it will be able to turn some government debt held by a federal pension fund into cash, and to block other funds from new investment. This will allow the government to tread water until August, at which point it might have to default. Republican lawmakers have used the debt ceiling debate as a way to enforce fiscal austerity, saying they will not raise the limit unless they win concessions from their colleagues on the Hill. Obama administration officials have sharply criticized this position, saying lawmakers are essentially threatening to crash the economy in order to achieve a political agenda. The Centrist Democrat Group Third Way is preparing a study that describes the consequences of default in clear terms. Politico’s Morning Money got a draft of the study, which lays out five consequences: 1) Treasury bond rates rise. 2) The stock market drops, potentially sharply. 3) The dollar loses its “special status.” 4) Mortgage rates rise. 5) Small business and consumer credit tightens and chokes the recovery. The study explains: The United States has the luxury of borrowing money more cheaply than any other country because Treasury bills are the safest investment on earth. But that would no longer be the case with default. Losing this safety feature would be a devastating blow, jeopardizing our ability to borrow at low rates, a huge advantage for America and part of our engine for economic growth. The group also has a nice graphic that shows these consequences as dominos. One stumbling block in the negotiations, it seems, is that the two sides in the debate don’t view the consequences of Congressional inaction with the same degree of solemnity. “When you say the drop-dead day is going to be August, I question that,” Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) said, according to the Wall Street Journal . “I’ll believe it when I see it.” The so-called drop-dead date, at which the government would likely default, was once July 8. But in a recent letter to Congress, Geithner said tax receipts were stronger than expected, allowing the drop-dead date to be August 2 instead. That revision has apparently increased skepticism on the Hill. “We are writing to seek clarification and an explanation of the rationale for the Department’s August 2, 2011 estimate,” reads a Thursday letter from the Republican Study Committee , a House group, to Geithner (hat tip to Politico). But in multiple letters to Congress, Geithner has made his reasoning clear. He has described the process the government must undertake to avoid default, and he has repeatedly emphasized the “catastrophic” consequences of keeping the debt ceiling where it is. “We are particularly concerned by the growing belief that hitting the August drop-dead date would be no big deal,” Bank of America chief economist Ethan Harris said in a new note, according to Business Insider . Harris says there’s a 60 percent chance Congress will delay raising the limit until right before the deadline. And there’s a 30 percent chance Congress will blow past the deadline, Harris says in the note.

Read the full article →

Government May Force Big Banks To Reduce Loan Balances For Distressed Homeowners

May 11, 2011

The nation’s five largest mortgage firms may be forced to reduce loan balances for distressed homeowners as part of an agreement with state attorneys general and the Obama administration to settle claims of faulty mortgage practices, a top state official involved in the negotiations said Tuesday. The proposal is part of a set of remedies banks would have to agree to in order to settle the state and federal probes launched last autumn, which found that the largest mortgage firms illegally seized the homes of at least dozens of borrowers and engaged in shoddy practices that short-changed troubled borrowers. Mortgage principal reductions would comprise part of a larger fine levied on Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial. Penalties could reach $30 billion, officials said. The forced reduction of mortgage principal as a penalty against flawed past practices has proven contentious. Some Republican attorneys general have objected, as have some Republican members of Congress. On Tuesday, however, a state official told The Huffington Post on condition of anonymity that the option “very much remains on the table.” While officials have not determined how much would be exacted from the banks — and specific dollar amounts to settle the probes have not yet been discussed between the state and federal governments and the banks — the proposal to compel financial firms to cut loan balances is part of one of two documents circulated Tuesday at a hotel in northern Virginia, where bankers, state officials and policy makers from the Obama administration began a three-day meeting. The targeted banks have argued vociferously, both in private discussions and in public, that they opposed cutting distressed homeowners’ principal balances. During meetings two weeks ago, representatives from such banks conducted a presentation which they claimed illustrated that mandating principal reductions would not prevent a significant number of new foreclosures and would be harmful to the general economy. The banks said “it would trigger a stampede of strategic defaults,” an official familiar with one of the two discussions said at the time, referring to instances in which borrowers who can afford to make good on their obligations choose not to. Strategic defaults are much more common in the business world than among homeowners, according to experts who study the issue. Homeowners generally feel a moral obligation to continue making their payments, whereas corporations view the breaking of contracts as pure business decisions. Government officials questioned the banks’ assumptions and fought back against their claims. The other document circulated Tuesday outlines standards that mortgage firms would have to adhere to for current and future borrowers, like forcing banks to ensure they have the right documentation when they move to repossess homes. The document was revised from an earlier draft first circulated in early March, The Huffington Post reported last week . The standards are a response to investigations launched last fall after the nation’s largest lenders voluntarily halted home seizures when faulty document practices — like so-called “robo-signing” — came to light, erupting into a nationwide scandal. Currently, no national standards govern how mortgage firms should treat borrowers who fall behind on their payments or default on their obligations. Congress has taken up the matter, and officials generally agree on how mortgage firms should treat borrowers. Tuesday’s bipartisan meeting included the Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna (R) and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (R), who called in remotely. Top officials from Florida’s and Texas’ attorney general offices, both led by Republicans, attended, along with the Democratic attorneys general from Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina and Connecticut. Top officials from the Treasury Department, Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development were also present.

Read the full article →

Reports Of Mortgage Fraud Rose To Record Level Last Year

May 10, 2011

After the housing market crashed, reports of suspected mortgage fraud soared. As lenders, homeowners and brokers rushed to close deals, the process during the boom years was tainted by fakery, according to reports later submitted to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency of the Treasury Department. The number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rose to its highest level on record last year, as 70,472 reports were submitted to the government agency, according to a new release from the LexisNexis Mortgage Asset Research Institute. That’s nearly double the number of cases reported in 2006 when the market was at its peak, and it’s nearly 22 times the number of cases reported in 2000. From the LexisNexis release: Fraudsters thrive on inadequacies within lengthy loan-related processes and a lack of consistency across organizations and/or industries that help them hide their true motives. Technology has enabled faster loan production through automation, ease of processing, and analytics. Industry professionals have keen knowledge of those processes, which makes it much easier to manipulate protocols in place to thwart adverse activities. The number of verified cases of mortgage fraud declined from 2009 to 2010, but that’s partially attributable to a decline in the number of new loans, the LexisNexis report says. Reports of suspected fraud increased nearly 5 percent during that period. Homeowners and investors have filed numerous lawsuits against mortgage companies, claiming that crucial mortgage documents were misplaced or even forged. Some of these suits have been successful, bolstered by testimony from bank employees. In a widely cited example, an employee of the lender now owned by Bank of America testified in a New Jersey court in 2009 that her company regularly held onto mortgage notes even as the loans were sold to investors, contradicting what contracts usually require. Without a note, a bank cannot prove it has a right to foreclose on a home; homeowners have used the absence of a note to contest foreclosures. Likewise, a missing note compromises the legal rights of an investor in a mortgage security, a situation that has prompted some investors to sue the banks that sold them the securities. But it’s not just the banks who have been accused of fraud. The Wall Street Journal describes a practice some brokers allegedly used, in which they would get artificially low valuations of distressed homes, and then help a buyer sell those homes for a profit. Homeowners, too, have been accused of misstating their income on mortgage documents. One borrower is now serving a 21-month prison sentence for mortgage fraud, the New York Times reported. The chiefs of the lenders that helped fuel this boom, meanwhile, have largely escaped punishment. Examples of alleged fraud extend to the foreclosure process as well. When it came out last fall that employees at foreclosure processing companies would sign thousands of foreclosure documents daily without even reading them, some of the county’s biggest lenders temporarily halted their foreclosures. The nation’s five biggest mortgage lenders — Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial — have been accused of wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners and improperly handling mortgages. All 50 state attorneys general along with the Obama administration are working to reach a settlement deal. Fines could reach $30 billion , The Huffington Post reported.

Read the full article →

AIG Shares Fall Low Enough To Threaten Government Loss

May 9, 2011

Shares in bailed-out insurer American International Group (AIG.N) fell to their lowest levels in nearly eight months on Monday, potentially moving them into loss-making territory for the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury holds 92.11 percent of AIG and has a break-even point of about $28.72 per share on the stock. AIG shares fell 3.7 percent to $29.57 in morning trade. Assuming the government were to sell the stock at a 3 percent discount to its closing price — as researchers say the Treasury did with its shares in Citigroup (C.N) — it would lose money on the sale. In mid-January, the government stood to make a profit of more than $27 billion on its AIG stock, but the shares have lost more than a third of their value since. Last Thursday, AIG reported a loss of more than $1 billion from continuing operations for the first quarter. The Treasury and the company are expected to sell billions of dollars in stock this month, as the company demonstrates an ability to raise capital and the government embarks on reducing its stake. AIG has said it expects the government to have sold off its whole position by mid-2012. (Reporting by Ben Berkowitz, editing by Gerald E. McCormick) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Banks Illegally Foreclosed On Dozens Of Military Borrowers

May 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — Two of the nation’s largest mortgage firms illegally foreclosed on the homes of “almost 50″ active-duty military service members, according to a Thursday report by the Government Accountability Office. The report does not identify the two mortgage companies. GAO investigators attributed the finding to federal bank regulators, who recently completed a three-month probe into allegations of improper foreclosures carried out by the nation’s 14 largest home loan servicers. The GAO report, which focused on problems in the mortgage industry and the lack of federal oversight, is the first official study to feature a partial tally of military families whose homes have been illegally seized. The 50 or so wrongful foreclosures were discovered during regulators’ review of only about 2,800 loans that experienced foreclosure last year. Millions of other foreclosures in recent years have not been reviewed by regulators. More than 2.8 million homes received a foreclosure filing in 2009, and nearly 2.9 million residences got one last year, according to RealtyTrac, a California-based data provider. Federal bank supervisors “could not provide a reliable estimate of the number of foreclosures that should not have proceeded,” they said in their April report on improper mortgage servicing. Two months earlier, the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees national banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, said that only a ” small number ” of home seizures should not have occurred. The large number of wrongful foreclosures identified by the GAO from such a small sample suggests that the problem could be more widespread. As foreclosures have surged to record levels, banks and other mortgage firms have been caught ill-equipped to handle the ever-increasing workload, Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials have repeatedly said. Due to years of under-investment by banks in their mortgage processing operations, regulators and experts have found that shortcuts were taken and procedures were not followed. Homeowners are bearing the brunt of these decisions. Improper mortgage practices affecting military borrowers are ” perhaps the most egregious cases ,” wrote five Democratic lawmakers in a joint letter Thursday to bank regulators. “The idea of wrongfully forcing service members’ families from their homes while their loved ones are risking their lives to protect our country is not only unconscionable, it’s illegal,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), one of the co-signers, in an emailed statement. Members of the armed forces on active duty are covered by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act , a law designed to protect them from financial distress. The legislation restricts foreclosure of properties owned by active-duty members of the military. Violations are handled by the Justice Department’s civil division. The Justice Department has reportedly said it’s investigating allegations of improper foreclosures on service members that were commenced by mortgage subsidiaries of Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank AG, two of the world’s largest banks. Bank of America recently announced it would change the way it handles military borrowers. A 50-state coalition of attorneys general and bank supervisors along with the Obama administration are also in talks with the nation’s five largest mortgage firms — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial — to resolve allegations of wrongful foreclosures and improper mortgage practices. Fines could reach up to $30 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. JPMorgan Chase disclosed in February that it had improperly foreclosed on the homes of 18 military families. Stephanie Mudick, an official at the nation’s second-largest bank by assets, told a House panel that the lender had either rescinded the foreclosure sale or reached a settlement for 12 of those military borrowers, and was working through the rest. The firm’s mistakes were a ” painful aberration ,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chairman and chief executive, said in a February statement. In April, the bank agreed to pay $56 million to settle claims of improper mortgage practices when dealing with military borrowers. On Thursday, JPMorgan spokesman Tim Keefe said that the bank had found additional cases of military families whose homes were illegally seized. Although he did not specify the exact number, a separate JPMorgan official said the total was less than 30. Keefe said the bank had committed to providing new homes and full forgiveness of any mortgage debt owed to the lender for these borrowers. By taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers’ home loans, the nation’s five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by the nascent Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection inside the Treasury Department and obtained by The Huffington Post in March . In February, Holly Petraeus, who leads the bureau’s unit overseeing military borrowers, sent a letter to the chief executives of the nation’s 25 largest banks urging them to follow the law when it comes to dealing with service members. “I appreciate your assistance in ensuring that your bank does not overlook its obligations -– legal and otherwise -– to your military customers,” wrote Petraeus, whose husband, David, leads U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Read the full article →

Treasury: Debt Limit Needs To Be Raised By $2 Trillion

May 4, 2011

WASHINGTON (Richard Cowan and Rachelle Younglai) – The Treasury has told lawmakers a roughly $2 trillion rise in the legal limit on federal debt would be needed to ensure the government can keep borrowing through the 2012 presidential election, sources with knowledge of the discussions said. Obama administration officials have repeatedly said that it is up to Congress to decide by how much the $14.3 trillion debt limit should be raised. But when lawmakers asked how much of an increase would be needed to meet the government’s obligations into early 2013, Treasury officials floated the $2 trillion working figure, Senate and administration sources told Reuters. Former Treasury officials have said it is routine for Congress to ask the Treasury Department for guidance. Republican leaders have asked the White House to provide the size of any proposed increase before the two sides sit down on Thursday to discuss the debt limit face-to-face. “We have not specified an amount or a time frame. We think that should be left up to Congress,” Mary Miller, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets, told reporters on Wednesday. She also said it would be better to raise the debt ceiling enough so that the government does not bump up against it so frequently. “Obviously, a longer period of time between these activities would be beneficial in terms of the work that goes into preparing for a debt limit increase. But again, you know that’s not the Treasury’s call,” she said. A Reuters analysis of Treasury’s borrowing needs forecast Congress would have to raise the debt ceiling by more than $2 trillion to get through next year’s election without having to revisit the issue. According to the Treasury, the government borrows on average about $125 billion per month. (Reporting by Richard Cowan, Rachelle Younglai, David Lawder; Editing by Andrea Ricci) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Congress Receives Extension To Handle Debt Limit

May 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is giving Congress a little more breathing room to negotiate a deal that would raise the nation’s borrowing limit. In a new letter to congressional leaders, Geithner said Monday that he can delay an unprecedented default on the debt until Aug. 2, using a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep the government running. That’s nearly a month longer than the July 8 deadline Geithner had previously cited. The U.S. government will hit its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit on May 16. After that time Geithner can take such steps as removing investments from government employee and retiree pension funds to keep from going over the limit. Republicans have said they will not vote to raise the debt limit until it reaches an agreement with the White House on further spending cuts. The debt subject to limit stood at $14.24 trillion as of last Friday, $58.1 billion below the current limit. With Congress back from a two-week recession, negotiations are expected to begin in earnest this week on the debt limit. Geithner said he will begin making moves on Friday to delay a default. At that time, the government will stop selling Treasury securities used by state and local governments to support their own sales of tax-exempt bonds. Treasury has suspended such sales six times over the past two decades, all in conjunction with previous debt fights. The last suspension was in 2007. The Treasury Department also announced Monday that it plans to sell $156 billion in debt during the current April-June quarter. It will be able to achieve those sales with the amount of room that still exists under the debt limit and the extra room made through Geithner’s maneuvers.

Read the full article →

Some U.S. Companies Will Receive Pass On New Rules, Geithner Says

April 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has decided to let companies continue to trade certain contracts used to guard against swings in currency values outside regulators’ view. New rules require that many such trades occur more transparently, on exchanges where regulators can see them. But Geithner is exempting certain contracts used by companies to hedge currency rates. The new financial overhaul law authorized Geithner to carve out such an exemption to stricter regulation. Business groups argue that tighter oversight of such contracts would be costly and unnecessary. But critics, including some regulators, counter that the entire market for financial contracts called over-the-counter derivatives should face stricter supervision. The value of derivatives hinges on an underlying investment, such as currencies, stocks or mortgages. Speculators using over-the-counter derivatives helped fuel the 2008 financial crisis. Treasury’s top markets official said the contracts already include many of the safeguards imposed by the new rules. For example, information on the price for each contract is available from a number of sources. The contracts often are traded on electronic platforms. Imposing new rules would mean “introducing an additional process into what is a very well-functioning market today, and you would be putting more steps into the settlement process,” said Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Mary Miller. The swaps that Geithner carved out account for about $30 trillion of the $600 trillion global market for over-the-counter derivatives, Treasury said. The new rules will apply to currency swaps, options and other contracts used for similar purposes. The decision technically is a proposal. Treasury will accept public comments for 30 days before finalizing the exemption.

Read the full article →

When Fed’s Stimulus Ends, What Next?

April 26, 2011

NEW YORK — When Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke holds his first-ever press conference on Wednesday, he will have some explaining to do. Two months from the scheduled end of the Fed’s stimulus program, the economic recovery remains weak. Since the Fed’s asset-purchase strategy began last fall, corporate America has gotten a boost, as borrowing has become cheaper and the stock market has rallied. But the broader economy still struggles. Home prices hit a new low in February, and unemployment, though improved, remains high. Most recently, rising oil prices have wounded consumer confidence, stoking fears that the nation could slip back into recession. The $600 billion asset-purchase program, dubbed “quantitative easing” or “QE2,” is intended to spur the recovery. Since November, the New York branch of the central bank has been buying new U.S. government debt from private firms, bidding up the price of Treasury securities and causing yields to fall. Those falling yields, in turn, have pushed down interest rates across the economy, making borrowing cheap and, in theory, stimulating business activity. Once this quantitative easing program ends, the economy will be missing a major source of support . Interest rates could rise if demand for U.S. debt slackens, or they might fall further if investors pile into Treasuries for shelter. In either case, the economy will face a test as it attempts to stand on its own two feet. “The Fed is trying to walk this very difficult, fine line,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. While the Fed isn’t likely to initiate a third quantitative easing program, there will be some on the Fed committee who will say, “Wait a minute. We can’t really pull this back until we see more sustainable growth, or some kind of direction of where inflation is going,” Silvia said. The economic recovery has been uneven, and the Fed’s stimulus seems to have given a disproportionate boost to the corporate sector. “The Fed took away the downside uncertainty,” said John Richards, head of North American strategy at the Royal Bank of Scotland. “It signaled to the market loud and clear that it was willing to do almost anything it had to do to have the U.S. not go into a deflationary situation.” But some economists fear that with the end of quantitative easing, the market will fall to where it otherwise would have been without the Fed’s help. It’s this possibility, among others, that Bernanke will likely be asked to explain Wednesday. Investors will hang on his every word. * * * * * * Just a few months ago, it seemed the recovery was picking up steam. Holiday sales were stronger than expected. In February, as the unemployment rate dipped below 9 percent, consumer confidence reached a three-year high. But then, conflict in the Middle East helped push oil prices to their highest level since 2008, when months of record-high prices dragged the economy into recession. A devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan in March, crippling that country’s exports and sparking global fears of nuclear contamination. That month, consumer sentiment fell to its lowest level since November 2009. In April, the International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for annual U.S. economic growth by the same degree as it cut its forecast for Japan. Brent crude oil, an industry benchmark, is now trading above $124 a barrel, perilously close to its 2008 high of $145. Some economists fear a scenario in which weak growth combines with steadily increasing prices, driven upward by oil. “Prices do pass through to things like airfares and distribution costs,” said Kevin Logan, chief economist of HSBC. “Instead of seeing a downward pressure on other prices — so that everybody cuts their margins, or looks to whatever productivity gains they can squeeze out of the processes to keep their prices down — instead, you just get slightly higher increases all along the line. That’s a risk.” Still, the stock market has surged despite these drags. Since Bernanke first hinted in an August speech that the Fed might launch a new round of asset purchases, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has climbed 24 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has gained more than 26 percent. With the Fed buying massive amounts of U.S. debt, interest rates have fallen, and investors, in search of yield, have been pushed into riskier assets, such as equities and corporate bonds, propelling the stock market to highs last seen in the heady days of 2006. That’s created a situation in which the value of these assets is partially determined by government intervention. Since quantitative easing began last fall, the Fed’s purchases of U.S. debt have amounted to more than 80 percent of the Treasury’s debt issuance, according to Fed and Treasury data. Those purchases have effectively crowded out private investors, pushing them into equities, which, in turn, have rallied. The Fed’s balance sheet has grown 17 percent since the program began, to nearly $2.7 trillion, according to Fed data. The central bank’s holdings of Treasury securities have increased by more than two-thirds in that time. The program is scheduled to wrap up by the end of June. When that happens, stocks could experience a jolt. “The thing that you get here with the end of QE2 is an equity market that is probably overdue for a correction,” said Richards, of RBS. “The end of QE2 could maybe trigger it.” Economists disagree on how the end of quantitative easing will affect interest rates. Some take the view of Pimco co-chief investment officer Bill Gross, who wrote in a note last month that the Fed’s exit from the Treasury market will create a sudden dearth of demand, causing bond prices to fall and interest rates to rise. That problem could be compounded if Japan, the foreign country with the second-largest holding of U.S. debt, shows weaker demand for Treasuries as it spends its money on domestic rebuilding, noted Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist of the Economic Outlook Group. Higher Treasury yields would push up rates across the economy, making it more expensive for prospective homeowners to get mortgages, for students to take out loans and for small business owners to get lines of credit. It could constitute yet another strain on the economy. But other economists expect interest rates to fall once the Fed’s program ends, as the economic outlook remains uncertain. Investors will seek the safety of Treasury bonds and thereby push yields downward, said Logan, the HSBC chief economist. Long-term interest rates fell after the Fed’s first round of quantitative easing ended early last year. But while these effects are unknown, the timeline likely won’t be. The Fed’s main policy-making body is meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, and is expected to announce the official end date for quantitative easing, giving investors time to prepare. “The vast majority of people in the market expect QE2 to end in June, on schedule,” said Andrew Tilton, an economist at Goldman Sachs. “If everyone’s expecting that, it would be odd for there to be a sudden disruption in the market as soon as that actually happens.” With the unemployment rate high and core inflation low, economists and investors expect the Fed to keep the main interest rate near zero for at least several months after the asset-purchase program ends, in an effort to keep money flowing through the economy. New York Fed President William Dudley said in a speech this month that the economic recovery is “still tenuous,” and still short of the central bank’s goals. Traders in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange are betting the Fed won’t raise the main interest rate until sometime between December and January. Further, some economists say the Fed will maintain the size of its Treasury holdings even after quantitative easing ends, by reinvesting maturing debt. That might help wean the economy from the Fed’s stimulus, Bloomberg News reported last week. But there’s yet another risk: that Bernanke will spook investors when he speaks to reporters on Wednesday. “One of the great challenges he’s going to have is being very, very careful to use the right adjective or right adverb,” said Silvia, the Wells Fargo chief economist. “What is ‘sustainable growth’? I’m not sure what that means. What is ‘accelerating inflation’ as opposed to ‘modest inflation’?” A misplaced word could move markets.

Read the full article →

FOREX: Yen Slumps as US Treasury Yields Rise Ahead of Bond Auction

April 25, 2011

FOREX: Yen Slumps as US Treasury Yields Rise Ahead of Bond Auction

Read the full article →

Economists: Fed’s Stimulus Has Been A Disappointment

April 24, 2011

But most Americans are not feeling the difference, in part because those benefits have been surprisingly small. The latest estimates from economists, in fact, suggest that the pace of recovery from the global financial crisis has flagged since November, when the Fed started buying $600 billion in Treasury securities to push private dollars into investments that create jobs.

Read the full article →

Default On Debt Could Be Doomsday Scenario For Economy

April 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — The United States has never defaulted on its debt and Democrats and Republicans say they don’t want it to happen now. But with partisan acrimony running at fever pitch, and Democrats and Republicans so far apart on how to tame the deficit, the unthinkable is suddenly being pondered. The government now borrows about 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Imagine that one day soon, the borrowing slams up against the current debt limit ceiling of $14.3 trillion and Congress fails to raise it. The damage would ripple across the entire economy, eventually affecting nearly every American, and rocking global markets in the process. A default would come if the government actually failed to fulfill a financial obligation, including repaying a loan or interest on that loan. The government borrows mostly by selling bonds to individuals and governments, with a promise to pay back the amount of the bond in a certain time period and agreeing to pay regular interest on that bond in the meantime. Among the first directly affected would likely be money-market funds holding government securities, banks that buy bonds directly from the Federal Reserve and resell them to consumers, including pension and mutual funds; and the foreign investor community, which holds nearly half of all Treasury securities. If the U.S. starts missing interest or principal payments, borrowers would demand higher and higher rates on new bonds, as they did with Greece, Portugal and other heavily indebted nations. Who wants to keep loaning money to a deadbeat nation that can’t pay its bills? At some point, the government would have to slash spending in other areas to make room for any further sales of Treasury bills and bonds. That could squeeze payments to federal contractors, and eventually even affect Social Security and other government benefit payments, as well as federal workers’ paychecks. A default would likely trigger another financial panic like the one in 2008 and plunge an economy still reeling from high joblessness and a battered housing market back into recession. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke calls failure to raise the debt limit “a recovery-ending event.” U.S. stock markets would likely tank – devastating roughly half of U.S. households that own stocks, either individually or through 401(k) type retirement programs. Eventually, the cost of most credit would rise – from business and consumer loans to home mortgages, auto financing and credit cards. Continued stalemate could also further depress the value of the dollar and challenge the greenback’s status as the world’s prime “reserve currency.” China and other countries that now hold about 50 percent of all U.S. Treasury securities could start dumping them, further pushing up interest rates and swelling the national debt. It would be a vicious cycle of higher and higher interest rates and more and more debt. The U.S. has long been the global standard for financial stability and creditworthiness, with Treasury securities seen as a fail-safe investment. But after the near-shutdown of the U.S. government and a new credit-rating report this week questioning the country’s fiscal health, Treasury bills and bonds are losing luster. If there is a debt limit deadlock, the government by this summer could find itself legally unable to borrow more money to pay its bills, beginning with interest on its debt and gradually extending to day-to-day federal operations. At some point, the government would have to decide which bills to pay and which to put aside. The debt ceiling will be hit on or around May 16, the Treasury Department says. Unlike the threatened government shutdown, the impact would start slowly, but then build mightily until the damage would be so dire that few political leaders or economists even want to contemplate it. The day of reckoning could likely be delayed at least until early July with creative bookkeeping. When the House first rejected the Bush administration’s $600-billion bank bailout in September 2008, the Dow Jones industrials went into a dizzying 778-point tailspin. A whiff of a possible similar stock market collapse came on Monday with a sharp selloff on Wall Street when the Standard & Poors lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to “negative” from “stable,” possibly a first step toward a possible downgrade of America’s coveted AAA credit rating. “We haven’t downgraded it. We just said, if nothing happens, we may have to,” said S&P chief economist David Wyss. He said a government default remains uncharted territory, “which is one reason why it’s not a good idea to hit the debt ceiling.” “There’s reason to worry,” said Wyss. “But my best guess is that we sort of muddle through this. Cuts will be made, they’ll be too little too late, but at least they will be enough to maintain a triple-A rating.” “It’s another game of chicken. And this time there are Mack trucks going at each other, not bumper cars. This is a biggie,” said American University political scientist James Thurber. But he predicted that, as in the past, “there will be an accommodation. They will avoid a crash.” Investment bank J.P. Morgan Chase recently concluded that any delay in making an interest or principal payments by the Treasury “even for a very short period of time” would have large “long-term adverse consequences for Treasury finances and the U.S. economy.” The analysis is being circulated on Capitol Hill by supporters of raising the debt limit. “If anyone wants to push that button, which I think would be catastrophic and unpredictable, I think they’re crazy,” JP Morgan CEO Jaime Dimon said recently of those seeking to block raising the debt limit. House Speaker John Boehner and most other GOP leaders agree on the need to raise the debt limit – and don’t want to be held responsible for a new financial meltdown. Still, they want Obama to make more concessions on spending cuts than he has done thus far. That isn’t sitting well with liberal Democrats, who think Obama has already given too much ground. One reason the two parties can’t find common ground: they can’t even agree on what’s causing high deficits. Democrats mostly blame it on policies of George W. Bush: two wars, tax cuts that continue to benefit the wealthy and an expensive prescription drug program. Republicans see government spending as the culprit, particularly on Obama’s watch. In fact, the main reason is the deep recession, which slashed tax revenues and led to hundreds of billions of dollars in recession-fighting spending by both Bush and Obama. The debt was $9 trillion in late 2007 before the start of the Great Recession, and it’s just a sliver under the $14.3 trillion limit today. Even though GOP leaders say they want to avoid more economic chaos, there is a large crop of tea-party aligned Republicans threatening to refuse to raise the cap under almost any circumstance. Polls suggest a large percentage of Americans oppose raising the debt limit. The debt limit has been raised ten times over the past decade. Obama voted against Bush’s debt-limit increase in 2006 as a senator, accusing Bush of “a leadership failure.” Obama recently apologized for “making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country.”

Read the full article →

Lobbying Push Targets New House GOP Lawmakers On Debt Ceiling Vote

April 21, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – They have been in Washington barely four months but the 85 first-term Republicans in the House of Representatives have found themselves the target of a massive lobbying campaign by Wall Street banks, big business and the Treasury. The fiscally conservative freshmen are under intense pressure to vote to raise the cap on U.S. borrowing so that the United States can continue to pay its bills after May 16. The Obama administration has expressed confidence that a deal can be reached with Republicans but Wall Street is less sure. Yet there are signs the intense lobbying effort is falling flat. Many freshmen still insist they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless it comes with legislation to slash America’s $1.4 trillion deficit. This is no ordinary class of rookie Republican lawmakers. Many are aligned with the loosely organized conservative Tea Party movement that is devoted to dramatically scaling back federal spending. After being elected to Congress from relative obscurity, they are being lavished with attention and receive almost daily warnings that a failure to raise the debt limit will trigger a global economic catastrophe. There are invitations to meet with Wall Street executives, coffee mornings with business leaders, calls from the Treasury Department, visits from economists, and weekly hour-long meetings with John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House. The lawmakers are reminded frequently in these meetings about the concerns America’s foreign creditors, especially China, have about the prospect of a U.S. default. Chinese officials in Washington say they are watching the debate closely. “There is no question about it — there is a lot of pressure being put on the freshman,” Michael Grimm, a first-term Republican from New York, told Reuters. “I have had meetings in D.C., meetings in New York, meetings with Fortune 500 companies, meetings with financial institutions,” he said. “I get invitations to meet with boards of directors, or a group of CEOs, from insurance companies, big banks, community banks, financial institutions, small businesses. “And the message is: not to raise the debt ceiling will lead to a catastrophic event. I understand that. But if it doesn’t come with serious cuts and real systemic reform, it’s just short-term relief.” CRUCIAL VOTING BLOC The Republican freshmen are seen as a crucial voting bloc in the looming battle over whether to allow the U.S. to go deeper into debt to avoid defaulting on its loans. The lobbying campaign is unusual in that it spans almost the entire financial and business community — often natural allies of the Republicans who now oppose them on the debt issue. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the nation will hit its current debt limit of $14.3 trillion in mid-May, and a refusal by Congress to raise it would be “catastrophic.” Geithner already has sent two letters to members of Congress urging them to back the move. Economists say a failure to raise the ceiling would trigger a crisis in bond markets and possibly another recession. Interest rates would soar and foreign investors would lose confidence in America’s creditworthiness. China, the biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt, warned Washington this week to protect investors in its debt after Standard & Poor’s rating agency threatened to lower the United States’ coveted AAA credit rating. “The budget issue has international consequences,” one Chinese official in Washington told Reuters. “We are of course following it,” another official said. HAGGLING OVER COFFEE The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has held dozens of meetings with Republican freshman on the debt ceiling issue, is sending a letter to every member of Congress next month urging them to vote to raise it. “We have told them we understand it’s a tough vote,” said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the Chamber. “But we also tell them this is about the full faith and credit of the United States and the consequences of a no vote will be dramatic.” The Financial Services Forum, a financial policy organization that includes the CEOs of some of Wall Street’s biggest banks such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, has focused almost exclusively on the House Republican freshmen. FSF officials have held meetings with freshmen and their staff in their Capitol Hill offices, in the FSF’s Washington office and in “meet and greet” sessions over coffee. The freshmen are not told how to vote but they are told of the dire consequences if they do not — investors will flee, interest rates will spike, the markets will panic, and higher interest rates will explode the deficit. Yet many are standing firm. “I am not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling if it does not include long-term structural reform to reduce the deficit,” one Republican freshman said. (Reporting by Tim Reid and Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Ross Colvin and Bill Trott) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Why Donald Trump Is Right on Trade

April 20, 2011

The usual suspects are racing to debunk Donald Trump’s foray into the most serious protectionism — a 25% tariff on China — proposed by a major presidential candidate since Patrick Buchanan ran in 1992. They know this is serious stuff. Our long-delayed national trade debate has begun in earnest. I have expressed reservations about getting obsessed with just China before. But broadly speaking, Trump is right on the money here. Nothing less than an actual tariff or the equivalent is ever going to get Beijing to stop gaming the international trading system to America’s disadvantage. This matters, big-time. Because until we sort out America’s trade mess — which must start by zeroing out, or close to it, our $600 billion-a-year trade deficit — our economy will never truly be healthy again. Jobs are the aspect of this everyone understands. But what a lot of people miss is that the current budget fight, and the angst over our mounting national debt, are also intimately connected to trade. So Trump is onto something even bigger than people realize. The budget fight ultimately comes down to the fact that we don’t have an economy large enough to generate tax revenue commensurate with the spending we have voted for. But why isn’t our economy big enough? Start with the fact that, as economist William Bahr has estimated, America’s accumulated trade deficits since 1991 alone have caused our economy to be 13 percent smaller than it otherwise would be. The trade deficit costs us about one percent in GDP growth every year, and that compounds over time. As for our national debt, or, more properly, our bloating public and private indebtedness? As I explained at length in another article , borrowing money (and selling off existing wealth, which has the same net effect) is a mathematically inevitable result of running trade deficits. The only way this can not happen is if a) the aforementioned $600 billion isn’t real money, or b) America is trading with Santa’s elves. So, Mr. Trump… How do we rebalance America’s trade, starting with China? Forget about doing it by playing nice. China will only give up one-way free trade (free for America, protectionist for them) when they are coerced into doing so. They are making far too much money to ever give up this sweet racket voluntarily. We are constantly warned that imposing a tariff on China would trigger a trade war. But the curious thing about the concept of trade war is that, unlike actual shooting war, it has no actual historical precedent . In fact, the reality is that there has never been a significant trade war. Anyone who knows otherwise, please name one. The usual example free traders give is America’s Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, which supposedly either caused the Great Depression or caused it to spread around the world. But this canard does not survive serious examination, and has actually been denied by almost every economist who has actually researched the question in depth — including many free traders and ranging from Paul Krugman on the left to Milton Friedman on the right. (I debunked this myth at length in this article.) There is, in fact, a basic unresolved paradox at the bottom of the very concept of trade war. If, as free traders insist, free trade is beneficial whether or not one’s trading partners reciprocate, then why would any rational nation start one, no matter how provoked? Wouldn’t they just keep lapping up the benefits of one-way free trade, if it’s so good for them? Furthermore, if the moneymen in Beijing, Tokyo, Berlin, and the other nations currently running trade surpluses against the U.S. start to ponder exaggerated retaliation against the U.S., they will soon discover the advantage is with us, not them. Because they are the ones with the trade surpluses to lose, not us. What exactly does the U.S. have to lose in a trade war? The only way a deficit nation can “lose” a trade war is by having its trade balance get even worse. Given that the U.S. trade balance is already outlandish, it is hard to see how this could happen. Supposedly, China could suddenly stop buying our Treasury Debt. Indeed they could, but this would immediately reduce the value of the $1.15 trillion or so they already hold. Furthermore, this would depress the value of the dollar — exactly the opposite of their currency manipulation strategy. Then there is the awkward problem of what China would do with all the money it would get by selling off its dollars. There just aren’t that many good alternatives for parking that much money. Japan doesn’t want its currency used as an international reserve currency, and the Euro has huge problems. Assets like gold and minor currencies are volatile or in limited supply. Others, like real estate or corporate stocks, are still denominated in those pesky dollars and euros. We are still a nuclear power, so at the end of the day, China cannot force us to do anything that we don’t want to. We could — a grossly irresponsible but not impossible hypothetical — repudiate our debt to them (or stop paying the interest) as the ultimate counter-move. More plausibly, we might simply restore the tax on the interest on foreign-held bonds that was repealed in 1984 thanks to Treasury Secretary Donald Regan. We have lots of little cards like that up our sleeve. So an understanding will, most likely, be reached. A deal (one of Mr. Trump’s favorite words!) will be struck. I think Mr. Trump understands this better than anyone else. That’s one of the things I like about him. The reality is that the United States is already in a trade war with China. Kowtowing to China today is economic appeasement, with the same result as political appeasement in the 1930s: a few more years of relative quiet with a bigger explosion at the end. At some point, America’s ability to run gigantic deficits must end, due to a prolonged slide or sudden crash in the value of the dollar. The longer we wait, the greater the likelihood that it will come as a sudden and destabilizing shock, rather than a managed, more gradual adjustment. This issue is bigger than China alone. How America deals with China will set the precedent, and establish or destroy America’s credibility, for dealing with a long list of other nations. Believe me, they’re watching Trump now in Tokyo, Berlin, and Brussels.

Read the full article →

Financial System Riskier, Next Bailout Will Be Costlier

April 19, 2011

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned. S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures. “The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report. But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.” Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP. Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse. Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis. “The impact of the next crisis will be greater because the economy is in a much more fragile state,” said Andrew Lo, professor of finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “My worry about the next financial crisis is it will come from some corner we haven’t really thought about, and we’ll be locked into more constraints on the Fed’s ability and on the Treasury’s ability to really do anything,” said Jeremy Stein, an economics professor at Harvard University who worked as an adviser to both the Treasury Department and the White House in 2009. The constraints are a result of the last round of multiple bailouts. “I think it’s literally going to be politically harder to put in resources, for better or for worse,” Stein said. That could either induce those in the financial system to take less risk, forestalling the next breakdown, or, “the mop up will be more difficult,” Stein said. The U.S. banking industry poses as much of a credit risk as Spain’s, S&P wrote in an April 8 report in which it judged 92 nations’ banking sectors. Spain is frequently mentioned as a candidate for an international bailout because many of its banks are under-capitalized, its banking system remains dogged by delinquent bubble-era loans and it faces losing investor confidence. The ranking is partly based on the quality of a nation’s financial regulation and lending patterns. U.S. bank regulators failed to prevent the crisis or the poor lending that led to it, S&P analysts wrote in a Jan. 6 report. “Systemic risk is greater now,” said Mark T. Williams, a finance professor at Boston University and a former bank examiner for the Federal Reserve. “It was uncorked because of the fall of Lehman Brothers, and the genie has been let out of the bottle,” he said, referring to the September 2008 failure of the former investment bank. The continued rise of globalization and the separate growth of derivatives — financial instruments that aim to spread risk — have led to greater connections between countries, industries and companies, Williams said. The level of so-called interconnection has tied firms to one another in ways experts do not completely understand. Regulators and policymakers didn’t know how interconnected various banks and insurance companies were prior to the near-financial meltdown of 2008. Because the giant insurer American International Group, better known as AIG, was connected to so many firms through derivatives, policymakers felt forced to bail the company out when it ran into trouble. “Systemic risk knows no national boundaries,” said Williams, who published ” Uncontrolled Risk ,” a book on the topic, last year. “It is not random or a force of nature, it is man made. [And] the global financial market remains fragile due to weak policies, lax regulation, poor accountability and systems not designed to capture global risk management.” The risk of another financial collapse also has increased, Lo of MIT argues, because banks have not accounted for losses on poorly-performing assets they’re still hiding on their books; lawmakers’ likely aversion to another bailout should the system run into trouble again; and the perception that many national economies aren’t as durable as they were just a few years ago. China, for example, was able to help the U.S. through the depths of the last crisis thanks to the steps it took to increase domestic spending. But today, China is trying to cool down an over-heating economy. “Next time around, if we see another systemic shock, it will be very difficult for us to depend on our foreign trading partners to cushion that kind of a blow,” Lo said. “The world economy is not as resilient as it was just a few years ago.”

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Extortion Politics: Why Won’t American Business Stop the GOP From Threatening to Blow Up The Economy?

April 19, 2011

As the government approaches its borrowing limit of $14.3 trillion, Republicans are seeking political advantage over what conditions should be attached to raising that limit. This is a scandal — or should be. Raising the debt limit shouldn’t be subject to party politics. Economic extortion should be out of bounds. It’s bad enough government shutdowns have become an accepted part of political negotiation. But failure to increase the amount the Treasury can borrow would have far graver results. Not only would the government be unable to issue Social Security or Medicare checks but the United States couldn’t pay interest on its current debt. We’d go into default. The full faith and credit of the United States would be in jeopardy. Treasury bonds would go into free fall. Interest rates would skyrocket. We, and most of the rest of the world, would fall into financial chaos. The recovery is still fragile. All this would force us and most of the rest of the world into a deeper recession or worse. No one in their right mind would threaten this. Yet it’s talked about as if it’s just another aspect of Washington politics — a threat that might be carried out in early July when the Treasury runs out of ways to keep paying our debts. In fact, it’s a giant game of highway chicken, and if one driver doesn’t yield the crash will be catastrophic. Games of chicken are won by drivers able to convince their opponents they won’t swerve. That gives a strategic advantage to Republicans backed by the Tea Party, who are so convinced government is evil they’ve signaled they’d be willing to risk it. But this shouldn’t be a matter of political strategy. Disagreement about the nation’s budget should be worked out through the constitutional process of majority votes in Congress, followed by the president’s signature or veto, and Congress’s right to override the veto. No group of legislators is entitled to threaten to crash the United States economy if its demands aren’t met. The biggest surprise is the silence of American business and Wall Street. They have as much if not more to lose as anyone if this game ends in tragedy. Yet the GOP — which big business and Wall Street fund — insists on playing it. Why isn’t the Business Roundtable decrying the use of this tactic? Where are the leaders of Wall Street? Where are the corporate statesmen? They should insist this game of chicken be called off or they’ll stop the funding. Maybe they think the crash won’t happen, that Obama and the Democrats will cave in to Paul Ryan’s and the Republicans’ before that. If so, they’re wrong. The Republicans’ demands are so far beyond the pale — turning Medicare into vouchers that funnel money to private insurance companies, turning Medicaid and food stamps into block grants that would deliver less to the poor, giving a giant tax windfall to the very rich — they cannot be met without causing the Democratic base (and most Independents) to revolt. Yesterday Standard & Poor’s (hardly a beacon of reliability after the Crash of 2008, to be sure) downgraded America’s credit outlook. Expect more downgrades if the game of chicken continues. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

IRS Gives $513M In Homebuyer Credits To Unqualified Taxpayers

April 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service has paid out more than a half-billion dollars in homebuyer tax credits to people who probably didn’t qualify, a government investigator said Friday. Most of the money – about $326 million – went to more than 47,000 taxpayers who didn’t qualify as first-time homebuyers, said the report by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. Other credits went to prison inmates, taxpayers younger than 18 and people who did not actually buy homes. “The IRS has taken positive steps to strengthen controls and help prevent the issuance of inappropriate homebuyer credits,” George said. “However, many of the actions occurred after hundreds of thousands of homebuyer credits had already been issued, including fraudulent and erroneous credits totaling millions of dollars.” The popular credit provided up to $8,000 to first-time homebuyers and up to $6,500 to qualified current owners who bought another home during parts of 2009 and 2010. The IRS said it worked hard to enforce a complicated tax credit that provided more than $27 billion to almost 3.9 million taxpayers. The agency said it corrected math errors on more than 370,000 returns and audited more than 400,000 taxpayers claiming the credit, denying hundreds of thousands of questionable claims. In all, the agency said its enforcement efforts saved more than $1.3 billion and identified more than 200 criminal schemes. The agency questioned some of the inspector general’s findings, but said it would follow up on the report and continue working to recoup any credits that were incorrectly paid out. The tax credit for first-time homebuyers was part of President Barack Obama’s economic recovery package enacted in 2009. In November 2009, Congress extended the credit and expanded it to longtime owners who bought new homes. Homebuyers qualifying for the credit had until April 30, 2010, to sign purchase agreements. They had until Sept. 30 to complete their purchases, after Congress extended the deadline. The extensions and expansion of the credit created a complicated system that made it hard for many taxpayers to determine which credit they qualified for, if any. There were also income requirements.

Read the full article →

Geithner: Congress Will Increase Debt Limit

April 14, 2011

April 13, 2011 10:55:23 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday that Congress will allow the country to borrow more by agreeing to increase the $14.3 trillion debt limit. “Congress will pass an increase in the debt limit,” Geithner told PBS Newshour. Republicans have said they are unwilling to raise the debt ceiling without some reforms to the government spending. Geithner said there were some lawmakers who want to take debt ceiling negotiations “to the brink” and warned that the United States could not take that risk. “So you want Congress to move as quickly as possible to raise that, and of course, they recognize that they have to do that,” he said. Treasury has forecast that the limit will be reached by May 16. After that point, Treasury can take emergency measures to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. But those actions will only give the United States about a two-month window before Treasury is unable to issue debt to fund government operations. (Reporting by Glenn Somerville and Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Jan Paschal) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

GOP May Stretch Out Debt Limit Negotiations Until July

April 13, 2011

April 12, 2011 11:12:49 PM By Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican leaders in Congress said Tuesday they may stretch out negotiations on raising the U.S. debt limit until July, when Washington will be close to defaulting on its obligations. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, fired the opening shots in what is expected to be a bitter fight with the White House over increasing the U.S. borrowing limit to enable the country to keep paying its debts. Prolonging negotiations past mid-May when Washington will hit its debt limit could give Republicans more leverage to secure big spending cuts, but it could worry investors as the country runs up against a possible default. The Republicans said they would act before that happened. In a speech Wednesday, President Barack Obama will lay out his vision for reducing U.S. deficits to a manageable level through tax increases, spending cuts and changes to expensive healthcare programs for the poor and elderly. Republicans plan to pass a rival plan in the House this week that would lower top tax rates, further slash domestic spending and eventually cut benefits in government-run health programs. “Tax increases are unacceptable and a nonstarter,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “We don’t have deficits because Americans are taxed too little, we have deficits because Washington spends too much.” Both sides say their plans would eventually get the country’s long-term debt under control and tame budget deficits that have hovered about 10 percent of GDP in recent years. A separate effort taking shape in the Senate could provide a way out of partisan deadlock. A bipartisan “gang of six” senators hope to reach a deal based on a deficit-reduction plan outlined by a presidential commission last year, but they say they do not know when they will finish up their work. “We are still having a meeting today and talking about trying to work out the remaining parts of the agenda,” said Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, one of the group. Experts warn the country could eventually face a Greek-style debt crisis, and the International Monetary Fund urged the United States Tuesday to outline credible measures to reduce deficits. The government will run up against its current debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16, according to the Treasury Department. Without an increase, the country would default on its debt, roiling bond markets and pushing up interest rates for businesses and individuals. The Treasury has said it can postpone the day of reckoning until July 8 by using a variety of measures. VOTE WILL COME AFTER DEBT LIMIT REACHED McConnell and Cantor said separately that Congress would hold a vote sometime between those two dates. “We anticipate that this debt ceiling issue will come before us between Memorial Day (May 30) and the Fourth of July,” McConnell said. Cantor said: “Treasury if I’m not mistaken has put forth a notice which says there is a window within which we have to act in order to avoid the eventual default of this country on its debt. And I believe that that outside deadline is early July.” Republicans see the debt limit vote as an opportunity to win further spending cuts, and say they will not support an increase without them. All 47 Republicans in the Senate have signed on to a measure that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. Some analysts were skeptical of the Republican strategy. “I think that’s the wrong thing to do,” said Lou Brien, a market strategist with DRW Trading Group in Chicago. “It risks the perception of default, and I think right now the market is thinking that there will be more adults than that, but we will see how that plays out.” Mary Miller, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets, said it would be “highly disruptive” if Congress did not raise the debt limit before the current ceiling was reached in mid-May. Although the White House has pushed for a “clean” vote on the debt limit with no attached demands, it is unlikely to get its wish. Republicans control the House, and even a majority in the Democratic-controlled Senate may not back that approach. “There’s a lot of Democrats, including myself, who are not going to vote for, to raise the national debt ceiling unless there is something concrete, specific, real, tough done to guarantee that the debt itself will be reduced in the coming years,” independent Senator Joseph Lieberman said. Obama will meet Democratic and Republican lawmakers Wednesday before his speech at 1:30 p.m. at George Washington University in Washington. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Rachelle Younglai and Karen Brettell; Editing by Peter Cooney) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Bond Market Yawned At Budget Showdown

April 12, 2011

But the market for Treasury bonds lately has been exceedingly calm. While the money managers who invest in those bonds say they monitored last week’s drama over a potential shutdown, it wasn’t the major driver of ups and downs in the market. Rather, prices moved based on the usual economic reports and new evidence about what the Federal Reserve will do next.

Read the full article →

Omer Rosen: How to Deceive a Client Without Really Trying

April 11, 2011

In my first article, ” Legerdemath: Tricks of the Banking Trade ,” I made brief mention of Treasury-rate locks: “Most brazenly, we taught clients phony math that involved settling Treasury-rate locks by referencing Treasury yields rather than prices.” A number of readers expressed doubt that using a settlement method based on Treasury prices was appropriate. What follows is an abridged explanation of a Treasury-rate lock deception. I offer it not in the misguided hope of stamping out abuses in Treasury-rate lock transactions. Rather, I seek to give a detailed example of a certain type of behavior — hoping it carries more weight coming from an ex-insider speaking onymously. There are two basic ways to describe the value of a Treasury bond, either by price or by yield. Price answers a simple question: How much would it cost you to purchase a bond? This price will change over time, in much the same way that the price of a stock changes over time. Playing counterpart, yield expresses the return that will be earned by purchasing this bond at a certain price. It is similar to how one can describe the speed of a car either by the average number of miles per hour it is traveling at or by the time it takes it to travel one mile — if you know one you can solve for the other, and if one goes up the other comes down. To belabor the point, either “1 mph” or “a 60-minute mile” provides you access to the same knowledge about the speed of a car. And, just as traveling at 1 mph allows you to complete a mile in 60 minutes, purchasing a bond at a certain price “allows” you to earn a certain return (i.e. a certain yield) on your investment. Now back to Treasury-rate locks. When a company puts on a Treasury-rate lock, it is putting on a bet that will pay off for the company if Treasury prices go down and go against them if prices go up. I ask that you accept on faith that sometimes this bet, rather than being a gamble, reduces risk and uncertainty for a company. When the time comes to settle this bet, the change in value of the bond must be calculated. This should be a simple matter of subtracting the bond price at the time of settlement from the price agreed to when the rate lock was put on. However, when it comes to bonds, corporate clients do not think in terms of price; they think in terms of yield because yield is expressed in the language of interest rates, the same language companies are familiar with from business concepts such as rates of return and borrowing costs. And so the client is conveniently never shown how to settle based on prices. Instead they are taught a nonsensical and more complicated method called yield settlement. The sole purpose of this settlement method is to trick the client into allowing the bank extra profit. Unaware that they should even take a second look at what they assume is procedural, the client does not question. Whereas price settlement asks, “By how much did Treasury prices change?” yield settlement asks, “By how much did Treasury yields change?” But how does one convert a change in yield (i.e. a change in an interest rate) into a dollar value that can be paid out? The short answer is that one cannot. But why not? If price and yield are both valid ways of expressing the value of a bond, shouldn’t you be able to measure the change in value of a bond by looking at either the change in its price or the change in its yield? Resorting to hyperbole, teaching a client yield-based settlement is akin to selling them on skipping through time. Return to our car analogy. In this analogy, “mph” will play the role of “yield” and “travel time” will play the role of “price.” And, rather than calculating the difference between two bond values, we will calculate the difference in travel time between each of two laps by our car around a 1-mile track: If lap 1 is completed at a speed of 120 mph and lap 2 at a speed of 1 mph, how would you calculate the difference in travel time between the two laps? If you were using yield-settlement logic, you would first imagine a car that speeds up from 1 to 2 mph. The time required to travel a mile would decrease from 60 to 30 minutes — a 30-minute change. Then you would assume that for all 1-mph changes in speed, travel time per mile would also change by 30 minutes. This logic implies that lap 2 would take 3,570 minutes longer to complete than lap 1 ((120 – 1) x 30). Short of a DeLorean and some lightning, this is not possible. For makes and models without a flux capacitor, correctly calculating the decrease in travel time means converting each speed from mph to travel time per mile, then taking the difference between the two travel times. As a 120-mph lap takes 30 seconds to complete and a 1-mph lap takes 60 minutes to complete, the difference in travel time between the two laps would be 59.5 minutes. Similarly, for rate-lock settlements, yields must be converted to prices, with the correct settlement value being the difference between those prices. Yet we at Citigroup, and in my experience our peers at other banks, almost always instructed clients to use the yield-based settlement method. And so a product that is meant to return the difference between two Treasury prices, a matter of elementary subtraction, is perverted for profit. If yields change by very little, this profit does not amount to much. Fortunately, depending on one’s point of view, banks have other tricks for profiting from rate locks and do not rely solely on yield-based settlement. In fact, miseducating clients with yield-based settlement is almost an afterthought, just a bonus that pays off with large movements in yield. And, in behavior that might be considered yet more sinister, sometimes banks had to agree with one another to miseducate clients with yield settlement. This transpired if a client decided to divvy up a single rate-lock transaction, with each bank getting a piece of the deal and each bank knowing that settlement of the rate lock would have to be a coordinated affair. All this mathiness is hidden in plain sight. Some examples of yield settlement can be found online. Or you can just ask a company that put on a rate lock to dig up some trade confirmations and see what settlement methodology was used. There are hundreds, if not thousands, such documents in corporate offices around the country, each one part of an unwarranted transfer of millions of dollars from clients to banks. For a more in-depth treatment of the above song and dance, with explications of the bond math and client interactions, please click here

Read the full article →

Shutdown: Economic Support Systems Would Continue, Even As Housing, Small Businesses Take Hits

April 8, 2011

If the federal government shuts down tonight, much of the apparatus that has helped prop up the faltering economy will remain in place. The Federal Reserve will continue its $600 billion asset-purchase program, buying government debt from Wall Street banks in an effort to get money flowing through the economy. The Treasury, which, as of late March, owned $142 billion of mortgage securities, will continue to sell that portfolio, as it works to earn a profit on the taxpayers’ investment. The New York Fed will continue selling the toxic securities it bought from AIG during the height of the financial crisis. Even if thousands of workers are furloughed, and struggling families miss government checks , these economic support systems will continue. “We got ourselves in a situation by letting banks become too big to fail, that they’re now basically sucking at the tit of the government,” said Mark Blyth, a professor of international political economy at Brown University. “If we let them go, we harm ourselves.” Two and a half years after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the broader economy remains on fragile ground. The unemployment rate is close to nine percent. Home prices are still falling. As fighting continues in the Middle East, oil prices are rising, pushing up energy costs and tearing precious resources from the American economy. During the last major government shutdown, from late 1995 to early 1996, the economy was stronger. Then, as now, the country was emerging from a recession. But at that point, the recovery was being felt throughout the broader economy. The unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. Nothing like today’s economic support system was in place back then. “The apparatus wasn’t in place because it wasn’t necessary,” said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Analytics. A shutdown now would come at a time when the economy is relying on government support to a historic degree. Since the recent financial crisis, government programs have helped promote a recovery. But the progress has been uneven. Flush with the taxpayer bailout and confident in explicit and implicit government guarantees, big banks have seen their revenues and profits skyrocket. Pay at Wall Street firms last year hit a new record, while wages for middle class Americans stagnated. Since the Fed launched a second so-called “quantitative easing” program late last year, the central bank’s New York branch has been buying U.S. government debt from big banks, allowing those firms to reap easy profits. The policy is designed to lower interest rates throughout the economy in order to stimulate a broader recovery. The Federal Reserve, which relies on separate funding, would not be affected by a shutdown of the federal government. Similarly, the Treasury holds a massive portfolio of mortgage-backed securities, which it bought during the worst of the crisis in an effort to calm markets. It began the process of selling this $142 billion portfolio last month. Those operations will continue if the government shuts down, a Treasury spokesperson confirmed on Thursday. But other economic programs that aren’t explicitly tied to the current slump would halt. The Federal Housing Administration, which insures and guarantees nearly a third of U.S. mortgages, would stop its operations, potentially causing further slowdowns in the housing market. Since spring is normally peak home-buying season, the shutdown could present a further obstacle to an already weakened sector of the economy. Without the government insuring mortgages, some mortgage issuance will likely stop. JPMorgan Chase plans to stop making new FHA loans in the event of a shutdown, The New York Times reported. “This is the worst time that we could introduce that uncertainty into this fragile housing market,” Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan told a Senate subcommittee on Thursday. Small businesses, too, could suffer. The Small Business Association would stop approving applications for loan guarantees and direct loans to small businesses, potentially hampering these businesses’ growth. Small businesses pay 44 percent of the nation’s private payroll, according to the SBA. “We will continue to do our part, we just won’t be able to close loans,” said Dave Rader, head of SBA lending at Wells Fargo. A shutdown, he added, would hamper the bank’s ability to “provide access to capital for small business borrowers.” If the shutdown drags on for more than a few weeks, it could wither Americans’ confidence enough to provoke a relapse into recession , Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said last week. But the real danger, experts say, is if the gridlock in Congress infects the debate on whether to raise the federal debt limit . The government must borrow money to finance its existing debt and other obligations. It will hit its ceiling in mid-May, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said this week before a Senate subcommittee. If the government were to default, U.S. interest rates would likely rise, potentially touching off an economic crisis that could send panic around the globe. “This is a symbolic exercise we’re going through,” said Robert Shapiro, a fellow at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy and a former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs. “If it goes a month, that means you’ve got much more serious problems. You’ve got problems with real political gridlock, at a real fundamental level. That begins to really worry markets.” Nathaniel Cahners Hindman contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson: Fiscal Follies: Facing the Budget Auto-Destruct Countdown, Without an Escape Pod

April 7, 2011

For the last couple of weeks, Washington has been living in one of those Star Trek episodes where the computer is counting down to an explosion. Within days, the U.S. government either will or won’t shut down because Congress either will or won’t agree on a budget to cover us until September, the end of the fiscal year. There’s always a certain drama to a countdown. Star Trek may have skimped on special effects, but they knew how to use countdowns to keep viewers hooked. It seems like the computer was always announcing how much time was left until the Starship Enterprise would go into “autodestruct.” To avoid having the spaceship blow up, both the captain and the first officer had to officially agree to turn the auto-destruct system off. In fiction, it provides a satisfyingly tense moment . You could say the federal government is in an auto-destruct sequence now too, and that unfortunately, our leaders can’t agree to turn it off. Even if we get through this current countdown without major damage to the economy or the country’s standing in the world, the truth is that we have more countdowns ahead of us. The countdown to the debt ceiling. For most of us, April 15 is usually tax day, but it’s also the day that U.S. debt could hit $14.294 trillion. According to the Treasury Department’s most recent estimates, we could reach the magic number anytime between April 15 and May 31 . When we do, Treasury needs permission from Congress to issue any more Treasury bonds, which is how we borrow money. And the U.S. government can’t function without borrowing money. There is an unnerving lack of clarity about exactly what would happen if Congress doesn’t go along. The Treasury does have a few maneuvers it can pull to delay hitting the ceiling, at least by a few weeks or months. Congressman Ron Paul believes that the government could just pay its bills as it goes along: ” You could have priorities . You can pay the interest on the Treasury bills, so the foreign holders of the debt don’t panic.” But Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and a slew of other experts think the reaction could be far less benign. In a worst case scenario, not raising the ceiling might undercut confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds, triggering the kind of debt crisis that upended the economies of Ireland, Greece, and Argentina. Essentially, we’d be telling the world that we don’t know how to manage our money, which is unnerving to any lender. Geithner has warned that it could cause ” catastrophic damage to the economy, potentially much more harmful than the effects of the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.” For Bernanke, not raising the debt ceiling ” would be extremely dangerous and very likely a recovery-ending event .” And given how long it’s going to take us to sop up the red ink, Congress will be facing “debt ceiling” decisions every couple of years for a very long time. It’s not over until it’s over, as Yogi Berra warned us. The countdown to 2019. If nothing changes, according to the General Accountability Office, this is the date when nearly every penny the government collects in taxes will be needed to cover spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt — around 90 cents out of every dollar is the attention-getting GAO factoid . With an aging population, rising health care costs, and gargantuan budget deficits driving up interest costs, spending in these categories could crowd out spending for just about everything else we expect government to do. We have about eight years to head this one off at the pass, but neither Congress nor the Administration has offered much of plan as of yet. The countdown to 2021. This is when the GAO estimates the debt held by the public will break its previous record of 109 percent of gross domestic product, set right after World War II. Essentially, the nation’s debts will be bigger than the entire economy. When a country’s debts get that big, it could start dragging down the overall economy, or even lead to a European-style debt crisis . Nobody really knows when the U.S. national debt would become “too big.” Greece imploded when its debt was about 115 percent of GDP, but Japan’s is already past 200 percent. Even in the aftermath of the tsunami, it hasn’t caused a debt crisis yet because Japan’s economy is bigger and healthier than those of Greece or Ireland. Plus, about 95 percent of Japan’s debt is held by Japanese investors . Only about half of U.S. debt is held in the United States . If present projections hold, the U.S. debt would hit 200 percent around 2033, and when you’re that far in the red, you’re always walking around with the auto-destruct switch armed. That’s why the world financial markets held their breath after the Japanese tsunami — at that level of debt, anything might set off a financial crisis. Despite the inside-the-Beltway drama, most Americans haven’t been focusing that much on the debate over this year’s budget. Surveys routinely show that much of the public is poorly informed about basics such as where the money in budget actually goes and how much can be saved by cutting funding for foreign aid and the space program (not much, just to be clear about it). So the clock is running. Either we make some meaningful decisions on the budget, or we stand by while the auto-destruct sequence starts. And unlike the crew on Star Trek, we can’t count on Captain Picard and Gene Roddenberry to rescue us just before the two-minute warning runs out.

Read the full article →

Leading House Dem Explains Vote To End Obama Admin’s Foreclosure Program

March 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — Eighteen Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives sided with Republicans in a symbolic vote to terminate the Obama administration’s signature anti-foreclosure program. Among those Democrats was California Rep. George Miller, a member of House Democratic leadership and a key ally to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who voted the other way. Miller told HuffPost he made up his mind to vote to kill HAMP after considering stories from California residents who said they tried to get reduced mortgage payments under the program and wound up ripped off or otherwise abused instead. In October, California Democrats compiled a report including dozens of stories about mortgage modifications gone bad. “What we saw was just a commonality of abuse by servicers, the banks, of our constituents,” Miller said. “They were being lied to. Their documents were being lost on a regular basis. Their phone calls were not returned. They were told they’d be handed off to another person, that never took place. They were told they would be eligible in a couple months, that never took place.” Miller said the Treasury Department’s handling of the program has abetted “wholesale abuse and misinformation and lies” by the mortgage industry. Under HAMP, eligible borrowers are supposed to see their mortgage payments reduced if they successfully make lower payments during a three-month trial period. But delays and mixed signals from mortgage servicers are common. Fewer than 600,000 homeowners are in permanent modifications, according to Treasury’s data, while more than 800,000 have been kicked out of the program, which was projected to help between 3 and 4 million when President Barack Obama launched it in February 2009. Treasury argues it can’t punish servicers who violate program guidelines, citing what it believes to be the voluntary nature of HAMP. Federal bailout watchdogs, however, have repeatedly criticized that argument, on the grounds that the firms signed contracts that allow Treasury to withhold payment of taxpayer dollars for failing to comply with HAMP rules. Miller said he did not think homeowners would be better off today without HAMP. He said he cast his vote to send a signal to the Obama administration that it needs to improve the program. The Senate is not likely to pass the bill, which would face a White House veto. He was not among the Democrats who signed a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Tuesday with recommendations for improving the program. Their suggestions included eliminating the “dual track” system that allows servicers to move forward with foreclosures and modifications simultaneously. “The real answer, of course, is to give these people access to the courts to get the modification, but the banks obviously have returned to their former position of power in the Congress,” said Miller, apparently referring to the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives. The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms in 2009, but the measure died in the Senate . Many consumer advocates consider judicial modification — also known as “cramdown” — the best way to address the housing crisis, arguing that the mere threat of cramdown will encourage lenders to reduce principal amounts owed by borrowers. Nearly one in four U.S. homeowners with a mortgage owes more on the mortgage than the home itself is worth.

Read the full article →

Analysts: Greenspan Derivatives Comments Shouldn’t Be Trusted

March 30, 2011

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill had the potential to become the “largest regulatory-induced market distortion” since 1971 in a Wednesday op-ed for the Financial Times , leaving some financial experts astounded. Greenspan took particular aim at the decision — currently under debate at the Treasury — to regulate the foreign exchange derivatives market. Doing so, Greenspan warned, could cause a large portion of the market to move overseas. Foreign exchange derivatives are used by financial entities to hedge and make bets on currency exchange rates. According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency , trading in foreign-exchange contracts produced more revenue than any other type of derivative in 2010 — yielding $9 billion at the nation’s top five banks. Proponents of derivatives regulation have argued that foreign exchange derivatives — or forex — should be subject to the same transparency and accountability rules as other derivatives. “If this market is deregulated, it’s going to be the candidate for blowing the next hole in the economy,” said Michael Greenberger, a former director at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. “[Greenspan's] article reads like it’s written from another universe. And it essentially is playing with dice, because it assumes that we are out of all problems: that unemployment is fine, that people’s pensions are in place, that the housing market is stable and that everything is fine.” Dodd-Frank was intended in part to set regulations in place that will prevent the derivatives market — a notoriously opaque branch of the financial sector — from causing another financial crisis. Whether forex is granted an exemption will likely be determined by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has said he will make a decision on the matter in the upcoming weeks. “The last person anyone should listen to on financial reform is one of the people who had the most to do with creating the circumstances that caused the financial crisis,” said Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets , a nonprofit organization that promotes the public’s interest in capital markets. “Greenspan was a cheerleader for markets-know-best and governments-should-regulate-least. And that has cost the country and the world trillions of dollars, millions of jobs and untold financial losses to American families.” Walter Dolde, a finance professor at the University of Connecticut and an expert on derivatives, said he agrees with Greenspan that the threat of the forex market moving overseas could be real. He just isn’t as concerned. “Could some of the players get petulant and pick up their marbles and leave?” asked Dolde. “Yes, they could. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. Then they become some other country’s problem.”

Read the full article →

Gilbert B. Kaplan: Apply the Obama Doctrine to the Trade Problems With China

March 29, 2011

We have one trade problem in this country that so far surpasses every other one that it is almost not worth talking about any of the others. The problem is Chinese subsidy practices, and our resulting $260 billion sustained trade deficit with China. The problem has recently taken on a new, more dangerous bent. First, China has made it increasingly clear they are not going to do anything about their undervalued currency . One aspect of the currency problem has been much talked about — how it makes Chinese exports to the United States very cheap and our exports to China uncompetitive. But it is now clear that the Chinese undervaluation has an even more nefarious and dangerous and long-term effect. It is a big driver forcing U.S. companies to leave the United States and relocate to China . This is because of the simple reason that a relatively “overvalued” dollar goes much further in China building plants and buying inputs and paying workers, than it does in the United States. This is not just a question of very low wages in China, it is about the additional accelerant of low cost renminbi making already low wages and cheap inputs even cheaper. So U. S. companies cannot afford to stay in the U. S. And once they leave it is very unlikely they will ever come back. The other development is a Chinese government pronouncement late last year that they are pumping subsidies of $1.5 trillion into seven strategic industries . The money will be going to the same emerging industries that President Obama and substantially every governor in the United States touts as the “industries of the future” that will rescue the United States from its high unemployment and anemic growth. The industries include information technology, environmental protection, new forms of energy (read wind and solar), biology, and new materials. On average that’s $214 billion per industry, and this leaves even the best U.S. companies with a choice. They can stay in the United States and scrap for the few million dollars the local communities and states and Federal government might provide. Or they can pull up stakes, go to China, and get their share of the $1.5 trillion being passed out over there. The Chinese, by the way, have no problem giving their money to U.S. companies, if the U.S. companies will put their plants up in China and turn over their technology. Unfortunately, even for the most patriotic CEO’s and Boards of Directors, this is an offer that is almost impossible to refuse. President Obama has not done nearly enough about this. There is no unfair trade strike force to fight back against Chinese subsidies. There’s no application of the countervailing duty (anti-subsidy) law to Chinese currency undervaluation. There’s no new trade legislation being proposed to modernize our laws, despite the fact that our last major trade law reforms occurred in 1994, 17 years ago. Why is this? I suspect that one reason is that President Obama does not want the United States alone to bear the brunt, economically or in terms of foreign policy, of standing up to China. All the Treasury bonds held by China, all the U. S. companies already substantially invested there, the Chinese spot on the U. N. Security Council, all militate against this much needed aggressive posture on trade. But I urge the president to take a lesson from himself, and apply the reasoning of Monday night’s speech on Libya to the international trade arena . The President should work on building an international consensus to deal with Chinese subsidies. He should direct his trade officials to meet intensively with other countries to kick-off this initiative. I think he would find allies for this effort in the European Union, and in Mexico, Turkey, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, and Japan, among other countries. I have talked to trade negotiators and industries in all these countries and they share our concerns. None of them want to see their industries moving to China, particularly the emerging industries of the future. Conveniently, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner is going to Nanjing, China this week to meet with the G-20 leadership to discuss global economic issues. He should take the opportunity to meet off-line with like minded G-20 leaders and should focus on two issues. First, he should suggest that these countries join with the United States to begin an anti-subsidy case at the WTO (World Trade Organization) regarding the Chinese undervalued currency. In my view this international case is not the ideal approach; it would be better to proceed alone under our own laws. But it may be one the Administration is more comfortable with, consistent with the new Obama Doctrine of coalition building. Secondly Mr. Geithner should call on key members of the G-20 to begin a strategic dialogue with China, on their subsidy practices for emerging industries, which would demand a change in direction. Subsidies are as unfair and distortive as tariffs, a trade barrier the U.S. led the world in fighting back years ago when it started the GATT and the WTO. It is now time for us to exercise the same leadership on this most significant unfair trade practice of today.

Read the full article →

Janis Bowdler: Time to Move On: Families Facing Foreclosure Need Better Solutions Than HAMP

March 24, 2011

More than one million Latino families have either lost or will soon lose their homes. In California, Hispanic-owned homes account for nearly half (48 percent) of all foreclosures. The rapid loss of homes among Latino and Black homeowners has increased the gap in homeownership rates between White families and families of color. Our research shows that foreclosures wipe out wealth that should have paid for retirements and college educations, depress neighborhoods and home values, and harm family relationships . Our efforts to support community-based housing counselors working with families in foreclosure has helped us better understand how national foreclose prevention programs and policies can effectively reach the ten to 13 million families expected to lose their home during this calamity. As did others who are deeply concerned about the impact of the housing crises on families, we worked tirelessly to share information and provide guidance and recommendations to Congress and the administration. We had high hopes for the Obama administration’s signature Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). And when we recognized signs of trouble with HAMP’s implementation, and complaints from the community began to mount, we offered additional options and solutions to administrators. Unfortunately, many of our recommendations went unheeded. While HAMP set out to provide three to four million modifications, only 600,000 families have received permanent loan modifications through the program. Treasury has made some tweaks, but fundamental changes are needed to reach more families in distress. Our counselors still report difficulty obtaining modifications for worthy homeowners, and the lack of compliance has made justice unattainable for those wrongfully foreclosed upon. Moreover, the private sector’s move away from HAMP―proprietary modifications outnumber HAMP modifications two to one―suggests that the program’s influence and relevance are waning. At best, HAMP addresses the housing crises of yesterday; continued congressional focus on the program is preventing us from taking the bold steps that are needed to help millions of Americans facing foreclosure today. For these reasons we are left with little choice but to support the “HAMP Termination Act of 2011″ (H.R. 839). It’s time to focus on foreclosure prevention remedies that reach further. Congress and the administration must consider more effective approaches, such as these five promising ideas: • Leverage private-sector innovation. Rather than modifying mortgages one at a time, remaining HAMP funds could be leveraged to negotiate directly with investors to buy toxic mortgages in bulk. The savings can be passed to the homeowner in the form of principle write-downs and other modifications. Wall Street is way ahead on this, and similar models should be brought to scale. • Support local success . Boston Community Capital is helping evicted homeowners reclaim their property. States are using the Hardest Hit Fund to respond to unique local conditions. Congress and the administration should elevate and scale local victories. • Require more accountability from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The OCC called for an end to the “dual tracking” of foreclosures and modifications, and Bank of America has committed to partnering with others to address this unfair practice. Their efforts are severely undermined, however, without Fannie and Freddie on board. The Treasury and FHFA must compel the GSEs to implement this basic tenant of responsible foreclosure prevention. • Give the state attorneys generals (AGs) a shot. The AGs must accomplish what the Treasury has not―set firm, enforceable rules for modifications that include principle write-downs. The recently leaked terms raise concerns that the settlement might not go far enough. The AGs must conduct a rigorous inquiry and not settle until they have the best deal for their state. • Give homeowners some leverage. Many deserving homeowners miss out on modifications because they are mired in their servicer’s bureaucracy. A little leverage in the form of a bankruptcy safety net would prompt more thorough customer service. Bankruptcy reform has failed in the House and Senate, but this budget-neutral option should be reconsidered for struggling homeowners. Other efforts show more promise―namely the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and state endeavors through the Hardest Hit Fund―but these programs are not a substitute for a national strategy to modify mortgages for deserving homeowners. Stabilizing our housing market is essential to our economic recovery and should be a concerted, bipartisan effort. We call on Congress and the administration to set politics aside and work together on a comprehensive strategy to put an end to needless and wrongful foreclosure.

Read the full article →

Video: Levy Sees U.S. Exports to Brazil Growing With Economy

March 18, 2011

March 18 (Bloomberg) — Former Brazilian Treasury Secretary Joaquim Levy, now a strategist at Bradesco Asset Management, talks about the outlook for trade between Brazil and the U.S. on the eve of President Obama’s visit to the country, and the outlook for Brazil’s economy. Levy speaks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Time To Celebrate The Success Of TARP Again, While Ignoring The Totality Of The Taxpayer Bailout

March 17, 2011

It seems it’s time for this old song and dance again: Six banks repaid nearly half a billion dollars in funds they received from the government bailout of Wall Street, the Treasury Department said, bringing the total bank repayment under the Troubled Asset Relief Program to 99%. The Treasury on Wednesday said the banks repurchased TARP investments with proceeds to taxpayers totaling about $475 million. TARP was created in 2008, with its Capital Purchase Program set up for banks hurt in the financial crisis. Through the repayments announced Wednesday, as well as dividends and interest, taxpayers have recovered about $244 billion of the $245 billion in TARP funds disbursed to banks, the Treasury said. The Treasury currently estimates that bank programs within TARP will ultimately provide a lifetime profit of nearly $20 billion to taxpayers. From the Treasury’s lips to your eyeballs, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal and others. We’ve been through this before, yes? Back in July of last year, it was, ” Thus ends the much-maligned ‘Wall Street bailout .’” Except it didn’t end . In early March, it was, ” There is now broad agreement that the bailouts worked, stabilizing the financial system and preventing an even deeper crisis .” But the agreement wasn’t broad enough, for an ample number of reasons . But now TARP is almost paid back, we’re told, and taxpayers have earned $20 billion, to boot. Don’t spend it all in one place, America! Because as it turns out, you’re still out a LOT of money. And, courtesy of the Real Economy Project at the Center for Media and Democracy, I have some charts and graphs that should finally make this clear : While it is true that many TARP bailout programs have ended, Center for Media and Democracy research shows that money is still due to taxpayers under the TARP. More importantly, the research shows that the U.S. Treasury Department’s ten TARP programs represent less than seven percent of the $4.7 trillion disbursed by the U.S. government in an effort to aid the financial services industry. Far more money has been disbursed by the Federal Reserve to prop up the financial system than by the U.S. Treasury and those loans are still outstanding. The first graph shows that non-TARP expenditures, largely by the Federal Reserve, dwarf those of the TARP. It is absurd to declare ‘mission accomplished’ while counting only one small portion of the bailout. While the Federal Reserve aid was disbursed mostly in the form of loans, that money has not been paid back yet, and in the housing sector this disbursal of funds continues in what we like to call a “stealth bailout.” Our unique timeline of the bailout derived from government data pulled on a quarterly basis, clearly shows the initial infusion of some $2.7 trillion in emergency funds into the financial system, followed by a second infusion of funds into the mortgage and housing markets, largely through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and without a vote or any Congressional oversight. It represents the largest intervention in the housing market in history, yet it is not getting any of the scrutiny that has been applied to the TARP from policy experts, policymakers or the press. As I’ve been saying for a long while, TARP is just a fraction of the overall taxpayer intervention in the financial collapse, and we are far from recouping 99 percent of that. The above charts, obviously, have not been updated since last year, but Mary Bottari, the director of the Real Economy Project, told me Thursday, “My guess is that we are not too far off these numbers still,” adding, “TARP was never the big enchilada. It was always the Fed, and the Fed’s exposure still remains in the housing sector, where they have pumped billions in an effort to prop up the housing market.” The Real Economy Project tracks the total Wall Street bailout cost on this page at SourceWatch , which exhaustively runs down that enchilada. Sorry to rain on the parade, everybody! [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 →

Watchdog: TARP Helped Perpetuate A ‘Too Big To Fail’ System

March 16, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The watchdog panel for the $700 billion bank bailout faulted the U.S. government for the last time on Wednesday, saying the program helped underpin the perception that federal authorities will always prevent troubled financial firms from failing. In its final report on the bank bailout, the panel attacked the government for not being transparent enough and not articulating clear goals for its foreclosure prevention program. It also said federal intervention transformed the notion of ‘too big to fail’ into a stark reality. “Very large financial institutions may now rationally decide to take inflated risks because they expect that, if their gamble fails, taxpayers will bear the loss,” said the report authored by the Congressional Oversight Panel. Stigmatized for bailing out Wall Street at the expense of ordinary Americans, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, used billions of dollars in taxpayer money to prop up major financial firms, including Citigroup and Bank of America. Timothy Massad, the Treasury official in charge of the bailout program, said it was “simply wrong” for companies to think that the government would provide assistance to bail them out in the future. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill “makes it clear that we should not use taxpayer funds for that,” Massad told reporters. In recent months, TARP has enjoyed a renaissance of sorts, with some of its harshest critics admitting that the program helped save the financial system from collapsing. AUTO BAILOUT The watchdog panel concluded taxpayers would not likely recoup all of the $85 billion extended to the auto industry. Most of that went to restructure General Motors Co and Chrysler Group, now run by Italy’s Fiat SpA, in bankruptcy. The group found that government intervention in the automaker bankruptcies “raised questions about the long-term effects” of such action on credit markets, as well as sticky scenarios involving companies considered “too big to fail.” The report found that the Treasury failed to set clear goals, making it difficult to determine whether intervention in GM, Chrysler, suppliers and automaker financing arms was successful. It questioned whether the goal was only to save the auto industry from collapse or to extend rescue financing with the aim of recovering all of it when the industry got back on its feet? “It is difficult to say whether government intervention was the best option,” the report found. Congressional panel Chairman Ted Kaufman told reporters that he thought it was a good thing the government “went forward with funds” for the auto companies. MORE TRANSPARENCY NEEDED The panel admitted that TARP helped provide critical support to markets at “a moment of profound uncertainty” by showing that the country would take any action necessary to prevent the collapse of the U.S. financial system. The TARP’s final cost to taxpayers is estimated to be about $25 billion — an amount far below previous estimates of around $350 billion. Regardless, the panel chided the government for not using the full $50 billion that has been set aside to help keep distressed Americans in their homes. The Obama administration initially predicted that its Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, would help up to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure by providing permanent loan modifications. So far, HAMP has provided loan modifications for about 600,000 homeowners, angering House Republicans, who are trying to kill the program. Congressional overseers expect the program to help up to 800,000 homeowners. The panel said the Treasury Department was not able to determine which TARP programs were succeeding because it never collected relevant data in the first place. “Without adequate data collection, Treasury has flown blind,” the report said. The panel reiterated criticisms that the Treasury has never formally announced a new target. “Absent meaningful goals, the public has no meaningful way to hold Treasury accountable, and Treasury has no clear target to strive toward in its own deliberations,” the report said. (Reporting by Rachelle Younglai and John Crawley; Editing by Dan Grebler) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Video: Shiller Says Fannie, Freddie Phase-Out May Hurt Housing

March 15, 2011

March 15 (Bloomberg) — Robert Shiller, an economics professor at Yale University and co-creator of the S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index, talks about the impact a wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have on the U.S. housing market. The Obama administration has proposed phasing out the two mortgage companies have required a combined $154 billion in Treasury funds since they were placed under U.S. conservatorship more than two years ago. Shiller speaks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Shiller Says Fannie, Freddie Phase-Out May Hurt Housing

March 15, 2011

March 15 (Bloomberg) — Robert Shiller, an economics professor at Yale University and co-creator of the S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index, talks about the impact a wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have on the U.S. housing market. The Obama administration has proposed phasing out the two mortgage companies have required a combined $154 billion in Treasury funds since they were placed under U.S. conservatorship more than two years ago. Shiller speaks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

FDIC Proposes A Solution For ‘Too Big To Fail’

March 15, 2011

(Reuters) – Creditors who help authorities liquidate a troubled financial firm would be among those paid off first among unsecured creditors, according to a proposal issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Bank and financial services groups have complained that more clarity is needed about how unsecured creditors will be treated under the government’s new authority to seize large, failing companies. “This is an important step in providing certainty for the market in this new process,” FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said on Tuesday. The liquidation authority is designed to avoid a repeat of 2008, when the Bush administration bailed out American International Group and other firms, but not Lehman Brothers. Lehman’s bankruptcy virtually froze capital markets. It was a major part of last year’s Dodd-Frank financial reform law and the FDIC would be responsible for carrying out the liquidation. The rule will be out for 60 days of public comment. At the top of the list for who or what will be paid off first are any debts the FDIC or receiver took on as part of the cost of seizing a firm, administrative expenses, money owed the Treasury and money owed to employees for such things as retirement benefits. Further down the list are general creditors. The lower an unsecured creditor sits on the payment priority list the less likely it is they will receive any of what they are owed by the failed firm. Bank and financial services groups want the new authority to resemble the bankruptcy process as much as possible because creditors are familiar with that system. The rule also would allow, as required by the Dodd-Frank law, the government to “clawback” any compensation senior executives or directors received in the two years before an institution was seized, if it is determined they are “substantially responsible” for the failure. If it is determined that the executive or director was engaged in fraud, the government could seek more than two years worth of compensation. The proposal also lays out how a creditor could contest any decisions about whether, or how much, they get paid during a liquidation and ultimately they could take their case to federal court. (Reporting by Dave Clarke, Editing by Dave Zimmerman and Tim Dobbyn) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

McConnell Issues Threat Over The Deficit

March 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a direct challenge to the Obama administration on Sunday, telling “Fox News Sunday” that Republicans will vote against raising the debt ceiling if it is not coupled with a “credible effort” to shrink the nation’s overall debt. “I don’t intend to support raising the debt ceiling, and I don’t believe any Senate Republicans do unless we do something important related to spending and debt,” McConnell said. “It is going to have to carry something with it that the markets, foreign countries and the American people believe is a credible effort to get a handle on spending and the debt effort.” The United States will reach its debt ceiling within the next few months, setting the stage for another battle over government spending. Lifting the debt ceiling, or authorizing the Treasury to borrow money to pay its obligations, was once a routine action. But Republicans have opposed increasing the limit in recent years, voting against it multiple times in the 111th Congress. Because Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, efforts to block an increase to the debt limit have been thwarted. McConnell acknowledged that Republicans would be out-voted on raising the debt ceiling. “The Democrats can raise it themselves if they choose to and try do nothing whatsoever about the problem,” he said. Not raising the debt limit would have a disastrous effect on financial markets by causing the United States to default on its loans, according to government officials. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Six” working toward shrinking the deficit, told “Fox News Sunday” he opposes Republican efforts to tie the debt ceiling vote to other actions on the deficit. “I get a little worried when we start tying it to the debt limit vote,” Warner said. “Because as Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve has said, if we play Russian Roulette with the instability of the financial markets, if we were to default on America’s obligation to pay, you could end up seeing us back in a financial crisis like 2008.” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Congress should focus on shrinking the deficit, but must be realistic about the timeline. “We’re not going to balance America’s budget in the next six months,” Durbin said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s time for people of goodwill in both political parties to sit down and work it out. If there are going to be new revenues or cuts in other areas, let’s get it done. Let’s move forward.”

Read the full article →

AIG Offers To Buy Back Mortgage Securities From Fed

March 11, 2011

(Reuters) – American International Group (AIG.N) offered on Thursday to buy back, for $15.7 billion cash, mortgage-backed securities the U.S. government took off the bailed-out insurer’s hands during the financial crisis. The announcement came as a surprise, though AIG — which nearly collapsed in the fall of 2008 partly because of the securities — said in a regulatory filing it has been preparing to make the offer for at least a year. The company said it has set aside the cash to pay for the deal and will still have “strong liquidity reserves” after it closes. AIG will pay for the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) with cash from its insurance subsidiaries, which will then hold the securities in their investment portfolios, a person familiar with the situation said on condition of anonymity. AIG and the Fed have been in talks for “many months” about the deal, the person said. Given the insurance units’ needs to invest their capital, the source said the RMBS were an “attractive investment” at their current levels. The securities have actually increased in value since, giving AIG the opportunity to profitably pay back the government and regain them for its own portfolios. The source said AIG is hopeful the Fed will accept the offer soon, and that the company will have the cash to fund the offer ready as soon as next week. REDUCING AID AIG, which is 92 percent owned by the government, said the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will make a profit of about $1.5 billion on its residual equity interest in Maiden Lane II, the entity that holds the securities, if it accepts the offer. AIG said in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that the total outstanding assistance to it will be reduced by about $13 billion, to some $26 billion in total, if its offer is accepted. That $26 billion figure has three parts: the government’s interest in a vehicle that holds shares in insurer AIA Group (1299.HK), a different Maiden Lane vehicle that holds interests in collateralized debt obligations and an undrawn line of credit. Maiden Lane II was formed in December 2008 and took over about $20.5 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities in a bid to ease liquidity pressure on AIG due to its securities lending program. “At the proposed purchase price, the Maiden Lane II securities have an attractive risk/return profile to AIG,” the company said in its offer letter. The source said AIG would split the securities roughly proportionally between life insurer SunAmerica and property insurer Chartis. AIG shares rose to $37.45 in after-hours trading from a $36.48 close. At current levels, the Treasury stands to make a profit of nearly $13 billion on AIG shares. People familiar with the plans have said the Treasury is likely to start selling off its stake in May. The source said Thursday that the Fed deal would help AIG convince potential investors that its insurance businesses had solid opportunities to grow their investment income. (Additional reporting by Paritosh Bansal; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Gary Hill) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

US Dollar Higher Against Japanese Yen, Treasury Auction in Focus

March 9, 2011

US Dollar Higher Against Japanese Yen, Treasury Auction in Focus

Read the full article →

Government Recovers Large Chunk Of TARP Money

March 8, 2011

New York (Reuters) – American International Group (AIG.N) repaid another $6.9 billion of its bailout on Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury said. With that payment, the Treasury said it has now recovered 70 percent of the $411 billion distributed under the crisis-era Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. AIG paid the Treasury $6.6 billion from the proceeds of its sale of shares in insurer MetLife (MET.N), shares it acquired when it sold its international unit Alico to MetLife last year. AIG paid Treasury another $300 million in funds it had retained for expenses related to the Alico deal. After those payments, the Treasury still holds about $11.3 billion in preferred interests in AIG. It also owns about 92 percent of AIG’s common stock. At Tuesday’s closing share price, the sale of that stock would generate a profit for the taxpayer of about $14.22 billion. The Treasury said it expects taxpayers to recover “every dollar” of AIG’s bailout, which at one point swelled to $182 billion. Of the TARP funds still outstanding, about 70 percent are concentrated in AIG, finance company Ally Financial and automaker General Motors. (GM.N) Any ultimate profit on the AIG shares would help offset any possible loss from the sale of the auto businesses. (Reporting by Ben Berkowitz, editing by Matthew Lewis) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Greece raises USD2.3b in Treasury bill auction

March 8, 2011

Greece raises USD2.3b in Treasury bill auction

Read the full article →