Tag Archives: Citigroup

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.”

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.

Who Says Crime Doesn’t Pay?

12 Monday Apr 2010

Posted by in AIG, bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Who says crime doesn’t pay? If you happen to be a bankster or the crook who caused the collapse at AIG which, but for $182 billion courtesy of that never-ending ATM known as the American taxpayer, nearly led to the meltdown of our entire financial system, it pays like a Las Vegas slot machine. Consider the cases of Charles Prince, former Citigroup CEO, and Joseph Cassano, former head of AIG’s Financial Products Unit.

At last week’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearings Prince expressed his regret:

“I’m sorry that the financial crisis has had such a devastating impact on our country. I’m sorry for the millions of people, average Americans, who have lost their homes. And I’m sorry that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us.”

But not sorry enough to give back any of his ill-gotten gain from 2007 (emphasis added) :

“Prince, arguably the person most responsible for Citigroup’s enormous problems, can expect at least a $12.5 million cash bonus, compared with last year’s cash payout of $13.8 million.

And as he awaits his official retirement next month, Prince can rest assured that he will leave with $68 million, including his salary and accumulated stockholdings; a $1.7 million pension; an office, car and driver for up to five years — all in addition to the bonus. That is on top of $53.1 million he has taken home in the last four years, a period when $64 billion in the company’s market value has evaporated.”

However, Mr. Prince is a pauper compared to the HCIC (head crook in charge) at AIG, Joseph Cassano:

“Joseph Cassano was the head of AIG’s Financial Products Unit. They are the ones that made about a trillion dollars worth of bets in credit default swaps. They lost.

So, what happened to Cassano? This was all his idea and his team that brought on this colossal collapse. Well, he was fired! Great, justice served…Oh, did I forget to mention one thing? He received $35 million in bonuses when he was let go.”

…When they lost the bets, their company was devastated. Completely and utterly bankrput. The failure was so large, it promised to drag down the rest of the global economy with it. This forced the government to step in and cover their losses. So far, the United States taxpayers have put in $182 billion to keep AIG afloat.

That 35 mil was only tip money for Cassano:

“How much did he make for himself from 2000 to 2008 by gambling with the company’s money? Only $280 million…In the end, he walked away with over $315 million for destroying the company and maybe the whole economy.”

All that and no accountability required:

“This week the Wall Street Journal reported that prosecutors will likely not charge him with fraud. They are not going to try for clawbacks to get some of the money back. In the end, he gets away scott-free. But it’s better than free, he gets to keep all the money he never really made in the first place…”

The best way to rob a bank is to become a banker.

Elizabeth Warren on CNBC

31 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In an interview with Maria Bartiromo yesterday on CNBC, TARP Oversight Panel chairperson Elizabeth Warren commented on a wide range of topics from the alleged “profit” the government will receive from the sale of shares of Citigroup, to “pulling the plug” on Fannie and Freddie, to the impending crash of the commercial real estate market.

About the sale of Citi stock, Dave Dryden at Firedoglake has the explanation of why it’s all accounting hocus pocus. The upshot is this–the TARP money Citi received was only a small portion of the total federal commitment.

This message to the TBTF’s made me want to stand up and cheer:

“I don’t care how big you are, if you make serious enough mistakes, then your business can be wiped out. There is no guarantee anymore.”

Are they listening at the White House, the Treasury, and the Fed? One can only hope.

But the most ominous warning was on commercial real estate, calling it a “very serious problem that we’re going to have to resolve over the next 3 years,” Warren added that nearly 3,000 mid-size banks have what she called a “dangerous concentration” in commercial real estate lending. Asked if she saw a “return to normalcy” in 2010, Warren said, “I don’t think so, I don’t see it.” Watch:Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Elizabeth Warren on CNBC“, posted with vodpod

Too Big To Fail is Too Big–Break ‘Em Up

30 Tuesday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The chorus of those calling for breaking up the big banks is growing larger and louder by the day. Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE) in a speech on the floor of the Senate last Friday:

“These mega-banks are too big to manage, too big to regulate, too big to fail and too interconnected to resolve when the next crisis hits.  We must break up these banks and separate again those commercial banking activities that are guaranteed by the government from those investment banking activities that are speculative and reflect greater risk.”

Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, March 3:

“A truly effective restructuring of our regulatory regime will have to neutralize what I consider to be the greatest threat to our financial system’s stability—the so-called too-big-to-fail, or TBTF, banks. In the past two decades, the biggest banks have grown significantly bigger. In 1990, the 10 largest U.S. banks had almost 25 percent of the industry’s assets. Their share grew to 44 percent in 2000 and almost 60 percent in 2009.

…Given the danger these institutions pose to spreading debilitating viruses throughout the financial world, my preference is for a more prophylactic approach: an international accord to break up these institutions into ones of more manageable size—more manageable for both the executives of these institutions and their regulatory supervisors.”

Senator Kaufman and Mr. Fisher are just the latest additions to the list that includes former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, FDIC head Sheila Bair, Sen. Cantwell, and Sen. McCain, among many others. Unfortunately, two names not on the list are Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd.

And as if on cue, Citigroup gives us a prime example of why these financial behemoths need to be dissolved, and have what was once the “boring” business of commercial banking–taking deposits and making loans–separated from the risky business in which the banksters love to engage (with OPM of course) and why Wall Street cannot be left to its own devices:

“It appears that the pain of the recession is not deep enough to teach Citigroup Inc. what it needs to learn. The bank..is now readying a new unregulated insurance credit derivative, the CLX…The company is heading back into familiar territory where they’re putting taxpayer money into play on another risky bet. Simply put the instrument will enable it to gamble on future events by issuing complex financial instruments which attempt to quantify risk. This is very similar to the original business that Citigroup was heavily involved with that precipitated their fall from glory.”

Leopards and banksters never change their spots.

Who’s In Charge Here, Washington or Wall Street?

06 Monday Apr 2009

Posted by in Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

There are both encouraging and discouraging signs today in the battle over who’s in charge, Wall Street or Washington. First the good news. Finally, somebody in D.C. gets it.

“Elizabeth Warren, chief watchdog of America’s $700 billion bank bailout plan, will this week call for the removal of top executives from Citigroup, AIG and other institutions that have received government funds in a damning report that will question the administration’s approach to saving the financial system from collapse.

She declined to give more detail but confirmed that she would refer to insurance group AIG, which has received $173 billion in bailout money, and banking giant Citigroup, which has had $45 billion in funds and more than $316 billion of loan guarantees.”

With one simple sentence Warren summed up what, in my opinion, should be the consensus among those in the Obama administration.

“The very notion that anyone would infuse money into a financially troubled entity without demanding changes in management is preposterous.”

That’s the good news, now for the bad. There are some “administration officials”( I smell Larry Summers) who are busy looking for loopholes in congressional restrictions placed on financial institutions who receive bailout money.

“The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefitting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.”

“Persuading”, aka bribing.

“The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.”

“Special entities” acting as “middlemen”, aka money launderers.

Speaking of limiting executive pay, Rep. Alan Grayson’s Pay for Performance Act, which does exactly that, passed the House 247-171, with 10 Republicans voting yes.

But there’s rain on that parade, too. Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois, one of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, sponsored an amendment which would “allow institutions that enter into a payment schedule with Treasury on terms set by Treasury to no longer be subject to the bonus and compensation restrictions created by the Act.“

It passed 228-198 with the support of 63 Democrats, most of whom also voted for Grayson’s bill. Go figure.