Category Archives: Financial Crisis

GFY, S&P

27 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

As the extortionists at Standard and Poor’s threaten a credit rating downgrade, not just if the debt ceiling isn’t raised but if the deficit isn’t cut by $4 trillion, Robert Reich points out that if the crooks at S& P had done their effin’ jobs the deficit and debt that they demand be cut wouldn’t be where it is today:

“Who is Standard & Poor’s to tell America how much debt it has to shed in order to keep its credit rating? Standard & Poor’s didn’t exactly distinguish itself prior to Wall Street’s financial meltdown in 2007. Until the eve of the collapse it gave triple-A ratings to some of the Street’s riskiest packages of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.”

A practice from which S&P profited handsomely:

“S&P’s net annual revenues from ratings nearly doubled from $517 million in 2002, to $1.16 billion in 2007.”

And what happened to those securities S&P stamped AAA?

“…90% of the subprime-backed mortgage securities S&P and its competitors rated AAA in 2006-2007 – which means they’re as sound as Treasury notes – were later downgraded to junk bond status.”

Back to Reich:

“Standard & Poor’s (along with Moody’s and Fitch) bear much of the responsibility for what happened next. Had they done their job and warned investors how much risk Wall Street was taking on, the housing and debt bubbles wouldn’t have become so large – and their bursts wouldn’t have brought down much of the economy.

Had Standard & Poor’s done its job, you and I and other taxpayers wouldn’t have had to bail out Wall Street; millions of Americans would now be working now instead of collecting unemployment insurance; the government wouldn’t have had to inject the economy with a massive stimulus to save millions of other jobs; and far more tax revenue would now be pouring into the Treasury from individuals and businesses doing better than they are now.

In other words, had Standard & Poor’s done its job, today’s budget deficit would be far smaller.

And where was Standard & Poor’s…during the George W. Bush administration – when W. turned a $5 trillion budget surplus bequeathed to him by Bill Clinton into a gaping deficit? Standard & Poor didn’t object to Bush’s giant tax cuts for the wealthy. Nor did it raise a warning about his huge Medicare drug benefit…or his decision to fight two expensive wars without paying for them.

Add Bush’s spending splurge and his tax cuts to the expenses brought on by Wall Street’s near collapse – and today’s budget deficit would be tiny.

Put another way: If Standard & Poor’s had been doing the job it was supposed to be doing between 2000 and 2008, the federal budget wouldn’t be in a crisis — and Standard & Poor’s wouldn’t be threatening the United States with a downgrade if we didn’t come up with a credible plan for lopping $4 trillion off it.”  

So why in the hell is anybody listening to what Standard and Poor’s has to say? If we had a Justice Department that was actually interested in justice, the S&P analysts would be behind bars instead of issuing threats.

Advertisement

It’s the Demand, Stupid

04 Monday Jul 2011

Posted by in Clinton, economy, Financial Crisis, too big to fail

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Bill Clinton blathers:

“President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive,” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore – we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So, we SHOULD cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a FAIR amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay.”

Paul Krugman responds:

“Over the last two years profits have soared while employment has remained disastrously high. Why should anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations, no strings attached, would lead to faster job creation?

[…]

[T]he evidence strongly says that the real reason businesses are sitting on cash is lack of consumer demand. In any case, if corporations already have plenty of cash they’re not using, why would giving them a tax break that adds to this pile of cash do anything to accelerate recovery?

[…]

Lack of corporate cash is not the problem facing America. Big business already has the money it needs to expand; what it lacks is a reason to expand with consumers still on the ropes and the government slashing spending.

What our economy needs is direct job creation by the government and mortgage-debt relief for stressed consumers. What it very much does not need is a transfer of billions of dollars to corporations that have no intention of hiring anyone except more lobbyists.”

BTW Bill, I don’t think we need economic advice from the president who set “too big to fail” in motion with the repeal of Glass–Steagall, or the president who lit the fuse on the derivatives time-bomb with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, or the president who fired Brooksley Born when she tried to warn us about what would happen if derivatives weren’t regulated. Keep it to yourself. Please.

Senator Sanders on the Class War

11 Saturday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Clinton, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, Obama, Politics, special interests, Taxes, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Just one small segment of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ marathon speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday, dealing with the class war and the winners and losers in that war:

“…in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income. The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income–more than the entire bottom 50 percent.”

“From 1980-2005, 80% of all income went to the top 1%.”

Not much question who the winners are, and not much question now whose side President Obama is on. Charles Ferguson, director of Inside Job, wrote in Salon:

“It is…overwhelmingly clear that President Obama and his administration decided to side with the oligarchs — or at least not to challenge them. This raises the question of why they have made this choice, and whether it is a correct (in the sense of rationally self-interested) calculation on their part.

As to the “why,” several explanations have been proposed. One is that the president, as a matter of individual psychology, is extremely conflict-averse, preferring to avoid fights no matter how important. A second hypothesis is that the president is simply doing the most he can, given the political climate and the furious lobbying effort with which he is confronted. This explanation, however, is belied by [his] personnel appointments, among other evidence.”

The latest example of this is in President Obama’s choice for director of OMB. The new one, Jacob Lew, came from Citigroup. The old one, Peter Orszag, went to Citigroup. More Ferguson:

“A more disturbing possibility is that the Obama administration has simply codified a new strategic equilibrium in American politics, one first devised by the Clinton administration, in which both parties are supine with regard to the financial sector and the wealthy.”

President Obama brought out former President Clinton yesterday to endorse his “deal.” Bill Clinton, whose “bi-partisan outreach” during his administration left two ticking time bombs in the economy in the form of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which created “too big to fail,” and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned the regulation of derivatives.

Sen. Sanders brought up the subject of free trade. Just last week President Obama signed the South Korean version of NAFTA. I hear Ross Perot’s giant sucking sound again.  All you need to know about the South Korean “deal” it is that it got two thumbs up from those two staunch defenders of the middle-class and working people–the Chamber of Commerce and Mitch McConnell.

As good as it was to hear Sen. Sanders’ speech yesterday, I fear he is just a voice crying in the wilderness. The president’s “deal” is now being loaded up with enough pork to buy enough votes to win passage. In short, the fix is in, the wealthy and powerful will win again. We keep going back to George Carlin, “It’s a big club and we’re not in it.”

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.

A Conversation With Thomas Jefferson

22 Monday Nov 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Bill of Rights, Financial Crisis, Foreclosures, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, Uncategorized, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

I recently sat down for an interview (sort of) with our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. The questions are mine, the responses all quotes attributed to Jefferson. You could look it up:

Mr. Jefferson, a topic in the headlines lately are the security measures being taken in our airports, the aim of which is, allegedly, our safety. What is your opinion on that?

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Many Americans are protesting these actions by government officials. Would you support that effort?

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent…Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”

Some see this as the continuation of policies instituted after September 11 which erode our civil liberties and Constitutional protections. Your thoughts?

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.”

Also, on a related subject, what about the controversy over whether or not to try terrorist suspects in civilian court?

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Moving on to economic issues, have you been keeping up with what’s been labeled Foreclosuregate?

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

What about the influence of the financial system on our political process?

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

And the influence, in general, of special and corporate interests?

“Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

What about the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world?

“I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind…I love peace, and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer.”

“War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.”

Any thoughts about ending the policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

“Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds…Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

In closing, Mr. President, any final words of guidance for the American people?

“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be…. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

Thank you, sir.

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?

Who Says Crime Doesn’t Pay?

16 Saturday Oct 2010

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

It certainly paid well for two former executives of Countrywide yesterday in the settlement of a civil lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission charging Angelo Mozilo, former CEO, and David Sambol, former president, with securities fraud and insider trading. A scam which netted the two a total of nearly $160 million.

The first two paragraphs of the story read like this:

“Angelo R. Mozilo, who as head of home-loan giant Countrywide was at the center of the housing boom and bust, agreed Friday to pay a record fine as part of a $73-million settlement of a government fraud lawsuit over the lender’s near-collapse.

The deal with the Securities and Exchange Commission requires Mozilo, the highest-profile figure to be accused of wrongdoing in the mortgage meltdown, to personally pay a $22.5-million fine. The government said it would be the largest penalty ever paid by a senior executive of a public company in an SEC settlement.”

Then come the “buts”:

“Mozilo…also agreed to pay $45 million in “ill-gotten gains” to former Countrywide Financial Corp. shareholders, who lost billions when the company’s stock price plunged as defaults on home loans surged. But Bank of America Corp., which bought Countrywide in 2008, and Countrywide’s insurers will pay that amount under terms of Mozilo’s employment contract.

Countrywide’s former president, David Sambol, agreed to pay $520,000 in fines and $5 million in restitution. Bank of America will reimburse him for the latter.”

So to recap, Mozilo pays $22.5 million, Sambol pays $520,000. During the period covered by the suit Mozilo received $141.7 million, Sambol $18.3 million, while Countrywide was losing $1.6 billion. But that’s just a snapshot:

“For years, Mr. Mozilo was among the highest-paid executives in America and his S.E.C. fine is a fraction of the vast wealth he amassed running Countrywide. In one eight-year period, from 2000 until he left the company in 2008, Mr. Mozilo received total compensation of $521.5 million, according to Equilar, a compensation research firm.”

Mozilo is still the subject of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department, but anyone who believes this DOJ will pursue criminal charges against any of the financial industry’s Masters of the Universe hasn’t been paying attention. The next one prosecuted will be the first. Gotta keep looking forward, you know.

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.

“A Factory of Fraud”

09 Saturday Oct 2010

Posted by in Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Congressman Alan Grayson explaining what is becoming known as Foreclosuregate. And if you think it just affects people who aren’t making their mortgage payments, think again. It concerns everyone:

“We are approaching a point where the easiest way to make a buck is to steal it.”

No, we’re already there. We have been and we will be until the perpetrators, and those who aid and abet this “factory of fraud,” (including our elected representatives) are behind bars.

With Gregg on Finance Reform Committee Prospects Aren’t Good

08 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Financial reform is once again on the agenda as the House—Senate conference committee attempts to reconcile the differences between the 2 bills beginning on Thursday. This article from McClatchy doesn’t give me reason to be optimistic about the outcome:

“A group of lawmakers who are about to write an historic overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system has been stacked carefully with veteran compromisers — and one wild card.”

“Veteran compromisers.” To me, that translates into someone who doesn’t stand for anything. A typical politician with a moistened finger of one hand in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, while the other hand reaches for the largest campaign contribution.

“That’s Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a flinty Yankee individualist who briefly was set to be President Barack Obama’s commerce secretary before he changed his mind. Gregg’s expected to be the leading proponent of GOP and financial sector views, and therefore a key player in shaping the final legislation.”

An “individualist” who is “expected to be the leading proponent of GOP and financial sector views?” Can you say oxymoron? More like a party-line hack who is in the pocket of the financial sector to the tune of $710,000 from financial industry PACs, and who has a 78% approval rating by the US Chamber of Commerce for his pro-business voting record.

“Gregg, who’s retiring from the Senate after this year, thinks some features of the legislation that initially passed the Senate and the House of Representatives amount to dangerous liberalism. He’s unenthusiastic about expanding government oversight of banks and other financial institutions, and creating a powerful new agency to protect consumers’ financial interests.”

In other words, Gregg is for the status quo. No new regulation necessary, leave it in the hands of private business. That’s worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico, why not do the same for Wall Street. “Dangerous liberalism?” Can it be any more dangerous than the hands-off, let the market fix itself attitude that nearly led to Great Depression, Part II?

“This bill doesn’t break down conservative-liberal. This bill breaks down populist-rational,” he said. He cited a desire in both parties to punish Wall Street and show voters that Congress can get tough with the financial sector, but he fears that could go too far.

Wrong, Senator. It breaks down along what’s in the best interest of the people vs. what’s in the best interest of the big bankers, and it’s pretty clear what side you come down on there. Go too far? These greedy SOBs nearly caused the collapse of our economy and  put millions of people out of work. Is there such a thing as going too far?

“Financial interests, which also fear the bill will overreach, hope Gregg can bridge differences. “He will help to serve as an honest broker to achieve consensus among the conferees,” said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, the trade group for big financial firms.

“Honest broker.” Right. As honest as $710,000 will allow. And as usual, Democrats are sending the fox an engraved invitation to the henhouse:

“Democrats say that not only will Gregg be invited in, he also could become a crucial voice as deliberations progress.”

Which tells me one of two things. Either Democrats have a serious case of amnesia and don’t remember that no matter what Republicans say, they are there to block what they can and weaken the rest until it amounts to nothing, or Democrats on the committee don’t want real reform and Gregg is their useful idiot.

I think the latter is more likely.