Category Archives: bailout

What Communication Problem?

29 Monday Nov 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, Obama administration, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I keep reading about the Obama administration’s so-called “communication problem.” The latest being this piece in the LA Times by Richard Wolffe:

“[The] lack of agreement on economic fundamentals is a primary factor behind one of this White House’s most obvious failures: communications. As one senior Obama advisor told me the day after the disastrous midterms: “It was hard to find a single economic message when the economic team couldn’t agree on a single economic policy.”

I don’t get it. To me, the “economic message” has been crystal clear since the president began to name his team of advisors. The message has been and continues to be, save Wall Street by any means necessary. And to that I give a hearty “Mission Accomplished”:

Charles Ferguson, whose documentary about the financial crisis–Inside Job– is a must see, wrote in Salon:

“When Barack Obama was elected, he had an unprecedented opportunity to shape American history by bringing the country’s new financial oligarchy under control. Elected on a platform of change and renewal by a nation in crisis and with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, his election celebrated throughout the world, Obama could have done great things. Instead, he gave us more of the same. America will be paying for his decision for a very long time.

And now, nearly two years later, the Obama administration has established a clear record…It is, in short, overwhelmingly clear that President Obama and his administration decided to side with the oligarchs — or at least not to challenge them.”

Paul Krugman:

“No wonder we’re in such trouble. Obama must gravitate instinctively to people who give him bad economic advice, and who almost surely don’t share the values he was elected to promote. That’s what I’d call a structural problem.”

I’ll take it one fairly obvious (to me anyway) step further, President Obama doesn’t share the values he was elected to promote. (On a related note; if anyone’s looking for a Christmas present for the person who has everything, I’ll make you a good deal on some slightly used snake oil I bought two years ago). He’s the one who put that team in place and who continues to defend them (heckuva job Larry) on their way out the door. I have a difficult time believing that the replacements will be any different. A structural problem indeed.

Openness and Transparency, Anyone?

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by in bailout, Obama administration, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Fiction:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.

Fact:

“The late Bloomberg News reporter Mark Pittman asked the U.S. Treasury in January 2009 to identify $301 billion of securities owned by Citigroup Inc. that the government had agreed to guarantee. He made the request on the grounds that taxpayers ought to know how their money was being used.

More than 20 months later, after saying at least five times that a response was imminent, Treasury officials responded with 560 pages of printed-out e-mails — none of which Pittman requested. They were so heavily redacted that most of what’s left are everyday messages such as “Did you just try to call me?” and “Monday will be a busy day!”

None of the documents answers Pittman’s request for “records sufficient to show the names of the relevant securities” or the dates and terms of the guarantees.”

So much for openness and transparency.

William Black: “Fire Holder, Fire Geithner, Fire Bernanke”

26 Tuesday Oct 2010

Posted by in AIG, bailout, Financial Crisis, Foreclosures, Justice Department, Obama administration, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Lisa Epstein and William Black on Dylan Ratigan’s show yesterday:

Speaking of Geithner telling “one lie after another”:

“The United States Treasury concealed $40 billion in likely taxpayer losses on the bailout of the American International Group earlier this month, when it abandoned its usual method for valuing investments, according to a report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“In our view, this is a significant failure in their transparency,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general, in an interview on Monday.”

Zero Hedge has more of Mr. Barofsky’s report:

“This conduct has left the Treasury vulnerable to charges it has manipulated its methodology for calculating losses to present two different numbers depending on its audience: one designed for release in early October as part of a multifaceted publicity campaign touting the positive aspects of TARP and emphasizing the reduction in anticipated losses, and one, audited by the GAO for release in November as part of a larger audited financial statement. Here again, Treasury’s unfortunate insensitivity to the values of transparency has led it to engage in conduct that risks further damaging public trust in the Government.”

‘Manipulated its methodology for calculating losses?” Didn’t Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow go to prison for that?

“Risks further damaging public trust in the Government?” Is that even possible?

Foreclosure Fraud Just the Tip of the Iceberg

12 Tuesday Oct 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Justice Department, Obama administration, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dylan Ratigan, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker unravel foreclosure fraud:

To reiterate, the fraud in foreclosures that we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. The purpose is to try and cover up, and cover for, the fraud in the mortgage process all the way back to the origination of the mortgages, which were then packaged into securities and fraudulently sold to investors as AAA quality, a rating gained by paying off the ratings agencies. As our parents always told us, one lie requires another one to cover up the first one, which requires another lie to cover up the second one, and so on, and so on, and…….

In my opinion, that’s why the Senate tried to sneak through the legislation that President Obama vetoed—it would have given the big banks protection from liability in this entire mess. As an aside–again just my opinion– but the only reason the president vetoed the bill was because of the attention it received and the light that was shone on its alleged “unintended consequences” (and if you’ll buy that….) My cynical nature when it comes to politicians tells me that “sending the bill back for modifications” translates into, ‘We’ll try again when the heat’s off.’

It’s also why, according to David Axelrod, the hope in the White House is that “this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly.” And why the White House opposes a national moratorium on foreclosures. A moratorium would give investigators and especially some 40 states’ attorneys general time to delve back into fraud and deceit at every level of the process

As Mr. Denninger explained, the only remedy is to force the big banks to buy back the toxic securities that they sold to investors under false pretenses. They can’t do that, which means Chase, BofA, et al, are insolvent. Actually, they’re insolvent now but for the phony profits from peddling this garbage to unsuspecting investors.

There is a provision in the financial reform legislation for resolution authority, that is breaking up large financial institutions that pose a “systemic risk” to the entire economy. Will Congress use it or will they do what they have done in the past and bail out their Wall Street cronies and contributors—again. If Republicans take control of Congress will they hold true to their campaign rhetoric of “no more bailouts” or will they dance to the tune of their big donors on Wall Street?

We may soon find out.

Why Tim Geithner Opposes Elizabeth Warren as Head of the CFPB

20 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama administration, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Elizabeth Warren should be a no-brainer as President Obama’s choice to head the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). She is a long-time advocate for the rights of consumers, the person most responsible for the Bureau’s inclusion in the recently-passed financial reform legislation, and its most notable and vocal supporter. She has this crazy notion that a consumer protection agency should actually…you know…protect consumers against the abusive practices of the big banks.

As chair of the TARP oversight committee Warren regularly clashed with what those banks consider to be in their best interests, as well as those in the administration who make a habit of carrying the banker’s water, namely Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Which is why it wasn’t surprising when Huffington Post reported last week that Geithner opposed Warren’s nomination.

Then came this, a piece by John Talbott (also in the Huffington Post) on Sunday. The reason for the treasury secretary’s opposition:

“The [financial reform] bill has been written to put a great deal of power as to how strongly it is implemented in the hands of its regulators, some of which remain to be chosen. The bank lobby will work incredibly hard to see that Warren, the person most responsible for initiating and fighting for the idea of a consumer financial protection group, is denied the opportunity to head it.

But this is not the only reason that Geithner is opposed to Warren’s nomination. I believe Geithner sees the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as a threat to the very scheme he has utilized to date to hide bank losses, thus keeping the banks solvent and out of bankruptcy court and their existing management teams employed and well-paid.”

The “scheme” to which Talbott refers began with Geithner’s predecessor as Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, and is being continued by Geithner and his partner in crime in the Obama administration, Larry Summers. In short it goes like this:

The $700 billion in TARP money was originally supposed to go to get bad loans, the so-called toxic assets, of the bank’s books. Immediately after TARP was passed, Paulson did a 180 and decided to use it as a direct cash infusion into the big banks rather than buying bad loans. (Nothing to do with him being a former Goldman CEO, I’m sure).

That left the banks with trillions of dollars of toxic assets still on the books, where they remain today. Geithner’s plan is for the banks to:

“…earn their way out of their solvency problems over time so the banks are continuing to slowly write off their problem loans but at a rate that will take years, if not decades, to clean up the problem.

And this is where defeat of the nomination of Elizabeth Warren becomes critical for Geithner. For Geithner’s strategy to work, the banks have to find increasing sources of profitability in their business segments to balance out their annual loan loss recognition from their existing bad loans in an environment in which they continue to recognize new losses in prime residential mortgages, commercial real estate lending, sovereign debt investments, bridge loans to private equity groups, leverage buyout lending and credit card defaults.

The banks have made no secret as to where they will find this increase in cash flow. They intend to soak their small retail customers, their consumer and small business borrowers, their credit card holders and their small depositors with increased costs and fees and are continuing many of the bad mortgage practices that led to the crisis

[…]

It is exactly these types of unwarranted fees on small consumers and poorly designed products that Elizabeth Warren will fight against as head of the new consumer finance protection group. And it is why Geithner sees her as so threatening. Unless the banks are allowed to raise fees and charges on their smaller consumer customers, Geithner’s and Summers’ scheme for dealing with the banking crisis by hiding problem loans permanently on the banks’ balance sheets will be exposed for what it is, an attempt at preserving the jobs of current bank executives at the cost of dragging out this recovery needlessly for years in the future.”

After much thought and careful consideration (which took about 1.5 seconds) I have a suggestion for how President Obama can resolve this conflict. Warren’s in, Geithner’s out. Problem solved.

Another Republican For Bailouts

10 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in bailout, BP, Congress, Gulf Oil Spill, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

From TPMDC:

“In response to a question from TPMDC, House Minority Leader John Boehner backed Tom Donohue, President of the Chamber of Commerce, in saying taxpayers should help pick up the tab.

“I think the people responsible in the oil spill–BP and the federal government–should take full responsibility for what’s happening there,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

On Friday, Donohue made clear that he opposes efforts to stick BP, a member of the Chamber, with the bill. “It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game,” he said. “Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that.”

So I asked Boehner, “do you agree with Tom Donohue of the Chamber that the government and taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?” The shorter answer is “yes”.

“I could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain.
And my head I’d be scratchin’ while
my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.”

Senate Votes on Financial Regulation Amendments

12 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, McCain, Politics, Progressives, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Any time anything passes in the Senate by a vote of 96–0 I’m suspicious. Those numbers are usually reserved for meaningless proclamations declaring ‘National Be Kind to Puppies and Kitties Day.’ But such a vote took place yesterday on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders’ original amendment would have required the Fed to submit to regular audits, but the watered-down version passed yesterday is for a one-time audit with a specific scope and time frame. This only adds to my suspicion that the newer version is more than likely toothless:

“A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment on the Senate action, but Fed leaders, who previously have objected to broader efforts to review monetary policy, have not opposed the most recent version of Sanders’s proposal.”

A more accurate gauge of where the Senate stands on REAL financial reform can be found in other amendments taken up yesterday, like the one proposed by David Vitter which called for the stronger provisions contained in Sanders’ original proposal. It was voted down 62 to 37 with only 6 Democrats voting “Yea”—Cantwell, Dorgan, Feingold, Lincoln, Webb, and Wyden.

Another amendment, proposed by Sen. McCain, called for a time frame for winding down and eventually ending the government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That failed by a vote of 56 to 43 with only 2 Democrats–Bayh and Feingold–voting “Yea.” An alternative to the McCain amendment, proposed by Chris Dodd, called for “the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study on ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” That passed by a margin of 63–36. Russ Feingold (I detect a pattern here) was the lone Democrat voting “Nay.”

Credit where credit is due, Sen. Shelby is right on the money (so to speak):

“Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were at the heart of the financial crisis,” Shelby said Tuesday. “How we can have basic regulatory reform, financial reform, if we’re not going to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”

Also set for a vote this week is Sen. Lincoln’s amendment which would place strong restrictions on derivative trading. Needless to say, Wall Street is going all out to kill this:

“…the five [largest] banks together have mustered more than 130 registered lobbyists, including 40 former Senate staff members and one retired senator, Trent Lott. The list includes former staff members for the Senate majority and minority leaders, the chairmen and ranking members of the banking and finance committees, and more than 15 other senators. In the first quarter, the banks spent $6.1 million on lobbying.”

Why are the banksters fighting so hard to stop it? Follow the money:

“The change could cost the industry a lot of money. Banks reported $22.6 billion in derivatives revenue in 2009..”

The Geithner Solution to Regulatory Failure: More Authority for Regulators

08 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, Politics, too big to fail, Uncategorized, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Sure, federal regulators (like the former head of the New York Federal Reserve pictured at left) were inept, incompetent, and inadequate when it came to their ability to first foresee and then to take proper pre-emptive action based on all the red flags that were waving leading up to the financial crisis.

Sure, they may have overlooked the dangers of subprime mortgages, of major financial institutions being leveraged 30 to 1, and of those financial institutions becoming so interconnected through the packaging, re-packaging, and re-re-packaging of toxic securities and selling them back and forth that the failure of one could lead to the failure of all.

Hey, just minor oversights. No need to think they don’t deserve to keep their jobs, or better yet, be given more authority. Treasury Secretary Geithner seems to think so:

“During an appearance on Capitol Hill, Geithner acknowledged failures in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s supervision of Citigroup and other large banks, said regulators were “not conservative enough” when it came to overseeing banks’ leverage ratios and criticized capital requirements as not having done a “good enough job” as a buffer against risk.

He also said that regulators like himself could have done more to prevent the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression…To ensure these kinds of failures are avoided in the future…Geithner wants to leave it up to federal regulators — the same ones that presided over the housing bubble, oversaw extreme risk-taking by banks and other financial firms, and tried (yet failed) to contain a subprime crisis from mushrooming into a financial meltdown.

[…]

In short, Geithner said he wants to give regulators more authority, leaving it up to them to exercise their best judgment.”

No thanks, Tim. We’ve seen what leaving crucial decisions up to the “best judgment” of federal regulators leads to, from Wall Street to the Gulf of Mexico.

Quote of the Day: Taibbi’s Goldman–Roethlisberger Analogy

06 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, Goldman Sachs, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

From Matt Taibbi’s latest at Rolling Stone, The Feds vs. Goldman:

“The bank will try and – who knows – might even succeed in defending itself in a court of law against these charges. But in the court of public opinion it was doomed the instant the SEC decided to put this ghastly black comedy of a fraud case on the street for everyone to see. Just as Pittsburgh Steeler Ben Roethlisberger will never recover from the image of him (allegedly) waving his dick at a scared 20-year-old coed in the darkened hallway of a Georgia nightclub, Goldman may never bounce back from the SEC’s brutal blow-by-blow account of how the bank conspired with a hedge-fund magnate to bend one gullible business partner after another over the edge of the subprime housing market.

Priceless.

“Put Up or Shut Up” Time on Too Big To Fail

01 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Goldman Sachs, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Now that the Senate Republicans have abandoned their filibuster (after perusing the public opinion polls on Wall Street and observing the tap-dancing by Goldman Sachs execs at the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations hearings, I assume) financial reform legislation is set for debate.

Richard Eskow at the Huffington Post has a one-question test we can apply to our elected representatives to tell if they are serious about reforming the financial system or just being a posturing, pontificating blowhard—something that comes naturally to most politicians.

“This quick, easy-to-use test can be applied from the comfort of your own home (if you still have one), from that third job you’ve got to work every evening (too bad you can’t help the kids with homework anymore) … why you can even use it while you’re waiting on line to collect the last of your unemployment benefits!

As long as there’s a television droning away in the waiting area while you wait for that job interview, or a newspaper somebody left behind on that park bench, as long as you can learn how your politician voted, you can learn whether he’s really on your side or just another bank lackey.

Here’s the test: Will they vote to break up the big banks or not? It’s as simple as that … really.

…Yesterday Sens. Ted Kaufman and Sherrod Brown officially introduced an amendment that limits the size of banks and the amount of risk they can take. Under this amendment, no bank could become either so big or so leveraged that its collapse could threaten the economy… An identical amendment was introduced in the House by Reps Brad Miller, Keith Ellison, Steve Cohen, and Ben Chandler.

…What’s striking about the proposal is how simple and effective it is. No bank could hold more than 10% of the nation’s deposits, nor could it leverage (take risks with) sums that amount to more than 2% of the GDP.

What’s also striking is how few institutions it would affect. Only the three biggest banks would be affected by the size limit, and the cap on liabilities would only affect an estimate nine institutions or so.

These amendments offer our representatives in the House and Senate a simple choice: Support a safer and more rational banking system, or be counted among those whose votes are being swayed by the influence of Wall Street money. And they give the rest of us an invaluable tool. We’ll be able to see whether our leaders really means those words about “too big to fail” and “no more bailouts” by seeing whether or not they vote for these amendments.

If they do, they’ve passed the test. If they don’t, they’ve failed. Simple as that.

Here’s the greatest benefit this new test offers to frustrated voters everywhere. It lets us say to politicians, once and for all, on one of the most crucial issues of our day, those words every citizen longs to say to a long-winded public servant:

Put up or shut up.”