Tag Archives: too big to fail

Obama Makes Nice-Nice With the Banksters

13 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by in economy, financial reform, Obama, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

FDR, 1936:

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”

Barack Obama, 2011:

Can’t we all just get along?

“A few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, President Obama convened two dozen Wall Street executives, many of them longtime donors, in the White House’s Blue Room.

 The guests were asked for their thoughts on how to speed the economic recovery, then the president opened the floor for over an hour on hot issues like hedge fund regulation and the deficit.

Mr. Obama, who enraged many financial industry executives a year and a half ago by labeling them “fat cats” and criticizing their bonuses, followed up the meeting with phone calls to those who could not attend.

The event, organized by the Democratic National Committee, kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash — in part by trying to convince Wall Street that his policies, far from undercutting the investor class, have helped bring banks and financial markets back to health.

[…]

 The president’s top financial industry supporters say they are confident that the support Mr. Obama needs will ultimately be there, despite the financial industry’s unhappiness over his efforts to tighten regulation of their businesses. But it is clear that those supporters will have to work much harder to win over the financial services industry than they did in 2008, before Wall Street’s bust, the subsequent clashes over policy and the sometimes bitter personal differences that lingered afterward.”

Just what in the Sam freaking Hill does the financial industry have to be unhappy about? “Too big to fail” is bigger than ever, no meaningful reform of the industry was passed, their salaries and bonuses are back at or above what they were before these greedy bastards nearly wrecked the world’s economy, none of them has gone to jail, and one of their lackeys is still the Treasury Secretary. Yeah, the big banks are back to good health alright. Nobody else is, but they are.

 “And as Mr. Obama seeks to rebuild, Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, is using his background as a venture capital executive and his policy proposals to woo financial-industry donors.

Last week, Mr. Romney held three fund-raisers in Greenwich, Conn., and New York, including a reception hosted by Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund manager who donated to Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Scaramucci said he wanted a president who embodied pragmatism and middle-of-the-road solutions. In 2008, that candidate was Mr. Obama, he said; today, it is Mr. Romney.”

So if next year’s presidential election comes down to Obama vs. Romney it’s just a question of whose lips best fit on the bankster’s backsides as to who gets the biggest campaign contributions, not to mention the attached strings that come with said contributions. No matter who wins, Wall Street can’t lose.

And the beat goes on.

Advertisement

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.”

Axelrod in Wonderland

24 Friday Sep 2010

Posted by in financial reform, health care, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

David Axelrod in yesterday’s Washington Post:

“Pundits will spend a lot of time predicting who will win in November. But more is at stake than the fate of Democrats or Republicans. What’s at stake is whether the powerful corporate special interests will go back to writing our laws or whether our democracy will remain where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.”

What color is the sky in the land where unicorns run free, Dave? “Go back?” They never left. Former insurance company lobbyists and executives wrote the lion’s share of health care “reform.” Your boss cut a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure their monopoly remained intact. Did the big banks get broken up by so-called financial reform? Hell no. Is too big to fail still around? Hell yes. Does the military-industrial complex still get the same blank check that they’ve always had? Absolutely.

FYI, Mr. Axelrod, we no longer have a democracy in America. The correct term is oligarchy.

“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.”

Quote of the Day: Simon Johnson

03 Saturday Apr 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Simon Johnson, MIT professor, Huffington Post contributor, co-founder of Baseline Scenario, and author of the new book 13 Bankers, on why it is imperative that “Too Big To Fail” becomes a thing of the past:

“You can’t have a  market economy if some people have get out of jail free cards.”Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Simon Johnson on the Today Show“, 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.

Too Big To Jail?

28 Sunday Mar 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Only in the bizarro world of high finance can one be named as a co-conspirator and not subject to criminal charges:

“March 26 (Bloomberg) — JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and UBS AG were among more than a dozen Wall Street firms involved in a conspiracy to pay below-market interest rates to U.S. state and local governments on investments, according to documents filed in a U.S. Justice Department criminal antitrust case.

…None of the firms or individuals named on the list has been charged with wrongdoing.”

A government list of previously unidentified “co- conspirators” contains more than two dozen bankers at firms also including Bank of America Corp., Bear Stearns Cos., Societe Generale, two of General Electric Co.’s financial businesses and Salomon Smith Barney, the former unit of Citigroup Inc., according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on March 24.

Apparently “too big to fail” is also “too big to jail.”

The Charade of Financial Reform

26 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Simon Johnson at Baseline Scenario sheds light on Sen. Dodd’s proposed financial reform legislation, and it’s more of the same old, same old we’ve come to expect from Washington—the appearance of doing something while actually doing nothing:

“…officials are lining up to solemnly confirm that “too big to fail” will be history once the Dodd bill passes. But this is simply incorrect.  Focus on this: How can any approach based on a US resolution authority end the issues around large complex cross-border financial institutions?  It cannot.

The resolution authority, you recall, is the ability of the government to apply a form of FDIC-type intervention (or modified bankruptcy procedure) to all financial institutions, rather than just banks with federally-insured deposits as is the case today.  The notion is fine for purely US entities, but there is no cross-border agreement on resolution process and procedure – and no prospect of the same in sight.

[…]

Why exactly do you think big banks, such as JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, have been so outspoken in support of a “resolution authority”?  They know it would allow them to continue not just at their current size – but actually to get bigger.  Nothing could be better for them than this kind of regulatory smokescreen.  This is exactly the kind of game that they have played well over the past 20 years – in fact, it’s from the same playbook that brought them great power and us great danger in the run-up to 2008.

When a major bank fails, in the years after the Dodd bill passes, we will face the exact same potential chaos as after the collapse of Lehman.  And we know what our policy elite will do in such a situation – because Messrs. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, and Summers swear up and down there was no alternative, and people like them will always be in power.  If you must choose between collapse and rescue, US policymakers will choose rescue every time…

Once you understand that the resolution authority is an illusion, you begin to understand that the Dodd legislation would achieve nothing on the systemic risk and too big to fail front.

On reflection, perhaps this is exactly why the sponsors of this bill are afraid to have any kind of open and serious debate.  The emperor simply has no clothes.”

Dodd’s Toothless Consumer Protection “Watchdog”

17 Wednesday Mar 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Sen. Chris Dodd’s so-called “sweeping overhaul of the U.S. financial system” creates a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which is supposed to be “a new, independent consumer watchdog.” You just know there’s a “but” coming here, right? Right:

“…the legislation would impose significant limits on the autonomy of the new watchdog. It would establish a Financial Stability Oversight Council [with veto power over the bureau] of nine members, all but one of whom would be existing financial regulators such as the Treasury Secretary and Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees national banks.”

In just one example, let’s take a look at what those “existing regulators” and the now-Treasury Secretary were doing in the case of Lehman Brothers, as revealed in the report by the examiner of Lehman’s bankruptcy. While management at Lehman was engaging in Enron-stlye accounting, where were the federal regulators? Looking on:

“One crucial move was to shift assets off its books at the end of each quarter in exchange for cash through a clever accounting maneuver…to make its leverage [debt] levels look lower than they were. Then they would bring the assets back onto its balance sheet days after issuing its earnings report.

And where was the government while all this “materially misleading” accounting was going on? In the vernacular of teenage instant messaging, let’s just say they had a vantage point as good as POS (parent over shoulder).”

What’s worse is that “there is no evidence that Lehman kept two sets of books or tried to hide what it was doing from regulators.” Among the spectators:

“The NY Fed, the regulatory agency led by then FRBNY President Geithner [which] stood by while Lehman deceived the public through a scheme that FRBNY officials likened to a “three card monte routine.”

The FRBNY knew that Lehman was engaged in smoke and mirrors designed to overstate its liquidity and, therefore, was unwilling to lend as much money to Lehman. The FRBNY did not, however, inform the SEC, the public, or the OTS (which regulated an S&L that Lehman owned) of what should have been viewed by all as ongoing misrepresentations.”

So much for the “watchdog” capabilities of existing regulators and the Treasury Secretary. What about the other named mentioned, the Comptroller of the Currency. That would be John Dugan, a name not many are familiar with, but who was called in an article in The Nation last December, “one of the earliest architects of the too big to fail economy”:

“Too big to fail banks were a ticking time bomb, but they might not have ravaged the global economy in 2008 without major shortcomings in consumer protection over the previous five years. As head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Dugan played a leading role in gutting the consumer protection system, allowing big banks to take outrageous risks on the predatory mortgages that led to millions of foreclosures.

“For years, the OCC has had the power and the responsibility to protect both banks and consumers, and it has consistently thrown the consumer under the bus,” says Harvard University Law School professor Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.”

Consumer Financial Protection? Sounds more like Wall Street Financial Protection to me.