Associated article: Hoover Institution Wall Street’s War
by ilene - May 27th, 2010 3:53 pm
Wall Street’s War
Congress looked serious about finance reform – until America’s biggest banks unleashed an army of 2,000 paid lobbyists
By Matt Taibbi, The Rolling Stone
This article originally appeared in RS 1106 from June 10, 2010.
It’s early May in Washington, and something very weird is in the air. As Chris Dodd, Harry Reid and the rest of the compulsive dealmakers in the Senate barrel toward the finish line of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act – the massive, year-in-the-making effort to clean up the Wall Street crime swamp – word starts to spread on Capitol Hill that somebody forgot to kill the important reforms in the bill. As of the first week in May, the legislation still contains aggressive measures that could cost once-indomitable behemoths like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase tens of billions of dollars. Somehow, the bill has escaped the usual Senate-whorehouse orgy of mutual back-scratching, fine-print compromises and freeway-wide loopholes that screw any chance of meaningful change.
The real shocker is a thing known among Senate insiders as "716." This section of an amendment would force America’s banking giants to either forgo their access to the public teat they receive through the Federal Reserve’s discount window, or give up the insanely risky, casino-style bets they’ve been making on derivatives. That means no more pawning off predatory interest-rate swaps on suckers in Greece, no more gathering balls of subprime shit into incomprehensible debt deals, no more getting idiot bookies like AIG to wrap the crappy mortgages in phony insurance. In short, 716 would take a chain saw to one of Wall Street’s most lucrative profit centers: Five of America’s biggest banks (Goldman, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup) raked in some $30 billion in over-the-counter derivatives last year. By some estimates, more than half of JP Morgan’s trading revenue between 2006 and 2008 came from such derivatives. If 716 goes through, it would be a veritable Hiroshima to the era of greed.
"When I first heard about 716, I thought, ‘This is never gonna fly,’" says Adam White, a derivatives expert who has been among the most vocal advocates for reform. When I speak to him early in May, he sounds slightly befuddled, like he can’t believe his good fortune. "It’s funny," he says. "We keep waiting for the watering-down to take place – but we keep getting to the next…
 Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
 del.icio.us
|
|
Obama’s Regulatory Brain
by ilene - May 24th, 2010 3:17 pm
Introduction by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge:
We have long claimed that any financial reform, determined by the Senator from Countrywide and the Rep from Fannie (thank you Cliff Asness), is worthless, and any debate over it is completely useless as it will achieve absolutely nothing. Sure, it fills blog pages and editorials but at the end of the day, the only thing that can save the financial system is, paradoxically, its destruction. There are just too many vested interests in the status quo, that absent a full blown implosion and subsequent reset of the system, it is all just smoke and mirrors. Luckily D-Day is approaching. We present an opinion by Robert Reich which validates our view that FinReg, and any debate thereof, is a joke. Robert Reich On Why The Finance Bill Won’t Do Anything.
Obama’s Regulatory Brain
Courtesy of Robert Reich
The most important thing to know about the 1,500 page financial reform bill passed by the Senate last week — now on he way to being reconciled with the House bill — is that it’s regulatory. If does nothing to change the structure of Wall Street.
The bill omits two critical ideas for changing the structure of Wall Street’s biggest banks so they won’t cause more trouble in the future, and leaves a third idea in limbo. The White House doesn’t support any of them.
First, although the Senate bill seeks to avoid the “too big to fail” problem by pushing failing banks into an “orderly” bankruptcy-type process, this regulatory approach isn’t enough. The Senate roundly rejected an amendment that would have broken up the biggest banks by imposing caps on the deposits they could hold and their capital assets.
You do not have to be an algorithm-wielding Wall Street whizz-kid to understand that the best way to prevent a bank from becoming too big to fail is preventing it from becoming too big in the first place. The size of Wall Street’s five giants already equals a large percentage of America’s gross domestic product.
That makes them too big to fail almost by definition, because if one or two get into trouble – as they did in 2008 – their demise would shake the foundations of the financial system, even if there were an “orderly” way to liquidate them. Because traders and investors know they are too big…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
The Challenge of Closing Tax Loopholes For Billionaires
by ilene - May 23rd, 2010 9:02 pm
"Call me old fashioned but I just think it’s wrong that a single hedge fund manager earns a billion dollars, when a billion dollars would pay the salaries of about 20,000 teachers." Guess I’m old fashioned too. I find the bonuses and tax evading practices of the ultra-weathy financiers even more outrageous than Mish’s Union examples. If free markets are a contradiction of terms – while we’re headed in the opposite direction at lightening speed – maybe we could at least strive for fairer markets? And good luck with that given we need the participation of our corrupted, banker and lobbyist-owned politicians. – Ilene
The Challenge of Closing Tax Loopholes For Billionaires
Courtesy of Robert Reich
Who could be opposed to closing a tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private equity managers to treat their earnings as capital gains – and pay a rate of only 15 percent rather than the 35 percent applied to ordinary income?
Answer: Some of the nation’s most prominent and wealthiest private asset managers, such as Paul Allen and Henry Kravis, who, along with hordes of lobbyists, are determined to keep the loophole wide open.
The House has already tried three times to close it only to have the Senate cave in because of campaign donations from these and other financiers who benefit from it.
But the measure will be brought up again in the next few weeks, and this time the result could be different. Few senators want to be overtly seen as favoring Wall Street. And tax revenues are needed to help pay for extensions of popular tax cuts, such as the college tax credit that reduces college costs for tens of thousands of poor and middle class families. Closing this particular loophole would net some $20 billion.
It’s not as if these investment fund managers are worth a $20 billion subsidy. Nonetheless they argue that if they have to pay at the normal rate they’ll be discouraged from investing in innovative companies and startups. But if such investments are worthwhile they shouldn’t need to be subsidized. Besides, in the years leading up to the crash of 2008, hedge-fund and private equity fund managers weren’t exactly models of public service. Many speculated in ways that destabilized the whole financial system.
Nor…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Merkley-Levin Amendment Can’t Get a Vote
by ilene - May 20th, 2010 5:43 am
Merkley-Levin Amendment Can’t Get a Vote
By Mike Konczal, courtesy of New Deal 2.0
Is this a joke? There’s a broad effort, lead by Shelby, to block a discussion and vote on the Merkley-Levin amendment. Even with a 60 vote requirement and some democratic senators missing (with “one hand tied behind our backs” as Merkley said on the floor), it is still being blocked. David Dayen has the best roundup of the financial massacre from last night. If you get a chance, watch video of Merkley and Levin fighting for their amendment last night. They were on fire.
Between the last minute changes, the way the bill has morphed into an endless stream of studies to be ignored at a later date, the dropping of any of the strong progressive resolution mechanisms in the House and the blocking of votes and discussion on Dorgan, Merkley-Levin and Cantwell’s amendments, this has really been a massacre of what was originally a fairly decent bill. Both Reid and the President need to step in before this situation becomes even worse.
Dorgan slipped in his amendment by attaching it to another amendment, which nobody seemed to have caught. The Senate voted immediately to not have a discussion on the Dorgan amendment, thus having to avoid any responsibility for it.
As we discussed before, members of the “Chartered Financial Analyst”, or CFA, community were polled about the Volcker Rule. CFA’s are considered extremely well-qualified within the financial sector, and here’s how they voted:
Even reforms supported by a majority of polled financial CFA’s can’t get a discussion on the Senate floor. But having to deal with it daily, CFA’s are likely to feel how concentrated, politically powerful and abusive the current US financial system has grown.
Mike Konczal is a fellow with the Roosevelt Institute.
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
“Audit the Fed” Dies But Doesn’t Really Die
by ilene - May 7th, 2010 6:30 pm
"Audit the Fed" Dies But Doesn’t Really Die
Courtesy of Jr. Deputy Accountant
After much lip-flapping over the dangers of exposing the Fed’s top secret monetary policy thought process to ignorant outsiders, opponents of a full Fed audit have gotten their wish and killed Audit the Fed as we knew it.
Don’t worry, it’s not quite dead.
Plan for Congressional Audits of Fed Dies in Senate (WSJ):
Last-minute maneuvering in the Senate allowed the Federal Reserve to sidestep legislation that would have exposed its interest-rate decision-making to congressional auditors.
Pressure from the Obama administration led Senate lawmakers to alter a provision pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that was gaining momentum despite opposition from the Treasury and the Fed. It would have largely repealed a 32-year-old law that shields Fed monetary policy from congressional auditors.
The compromise, endorsed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) and the Treasury, would require the Fed to disclose more details about its lending during the financial crisis. It would also require a one-time audit of those loans and a one-time review of Fed governance. A formal vote was pushed back until next week.
Thursday’s Senate showdown came after senators on the left and right joined forces to support Mr. Sanders’ provision.
"At a time when our entire financial system almost collapsed, we cannot let the Fed operate in secrecy any longer," Mr. Sanders said. "The American people have a right to know."
But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, while insisting on a commitment to "openness" at the Fed, said in a letter to Congress the Sanders measure would "seriously threaten monetary policy independence, increase inflation fears and market interest rates, and damage economic stability and job creation."
Gee, would Bernanke feel seriously threatened because he is smart enough to know that if we were to crack open his secret diary we’d discover that it’s been HIM stoking inflation and manipulating interest rates?
Anyway, we’ll never get to crack into monetary policy (just a guess) but that’s probably for the best; the more we pick at the Fed, the more we expose their weaknesses to foreign governments or central banks who might like to manipulate the precarious position our own central bank is in. It’s a strategic move, and those sorts of moves (some of …
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Fed Privately Lobbies Senate to Kill Audit; What You Can Do!
by ilene - May 4th, 2010 2:46 pm
Fed Privately Lobbies Senate to Kill Audit; What You Can Do!
Courtesy of Mish
A bill sponsored by Ron Paul and Alan Grayson to thoroughly audit the Fed, passed the House. However in a brazen move that ought to offend the sensibilities of every citizen, the Fed is lobbying Senate members to water down the bill so that it is meaningless.
The Huffington Post tells the story in Fed Privately Lobbying Against Audit.
The Federal Reserve is privately lobbying against a bipartisan Senate amendment that would open the central bank to an audit by the Government Accountability Office, according to documents distributed to Senate offices by a Fed official.
In order to obtain the documents, HuffPost agreed not to reveal the name of the Federal Reserve official who did the specific lobbying in question.
"As I mentioned, we believe that the bipartisan Corker-Merkley provision in the Dodd Bill is quite strong and addresses issues of transparency and disclosure without impinging on the independence of monetary policy," the official goes on.
Merkley teamed with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on an audit provision, but Merkley himself says he’d prefer to go further. "I appreciate Representative [Alan] Grayson’s concerns over accountability at the Federal Reserve. I have been a strong proponent of Fed reform and voted against the re-confirmation of Ben Bernanke because the Fed has been so lax in using its regulatory powers," Merkley said in a statement to HuffPost, responding to an analysis from Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) showing that the Senate bill did not meaningfully expand transparency.
The Fed argument is a replay of a tactic that the bank tried in the House. Instead of outright opposition, the Fed backed an amendment in the lower chamber from Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), which the bank said would expand transparency but not interfere with monetary policy. It became clear, however, that the amendment would not expand transparency and was an attempt to defeat the audit in general. The Watt amendment was soundly defeated.
The Corker-Merkley amendment is the Senate version of the Watt amendment and the Fed is once again arguing that the broader amendment will impinge on the independence of monetary policy.
"The Sanders amendment, however, would directly interfere with monetary policy," argues the Fed official. "The amendment removes the current statutory protection for core monetary policy activities from GAO audit and would permit the GAO to
…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Why a Criminal Case Against Goldman Sachs Matters and Why Charges Could Stick
by ilene - May 4th, 2010 12:27 pm
Why a Criminal Case Against Goldman Sachs Matters and Why Charges Could Stick
By PAM MARTENS at CounterPunch
Goldman Sachs used to be the firm that pursued top government posts; now government is in hot pursuit of it, and not in a good way. The SEC has charged the firm and an employee, Fabrice Tourre, with securities fraud and the Justice Department has commenced a criminal investigation, according to news reports.
Change appears to be swallowing Goldman Sachs. It began quietly moving out of its storied and staid headquarters at 85 Broad last Fall to flashy new multi-billion dollar digs at 200 West Street, including a 54,000 square foot gym (roughly the size of 20 homes for average Americans; those who can still afford one after the Wall Street pillage). And after the release of internal emails by the SEC and Senate, Goldman looks more like a sleazy boiler room pump and dump operation in drag than an investment bank (in drag as a bank holding company). Comedy talk show hosts are having a field day (Jon Stewart calls them “those f*!*!ing guys”) and Goldmanfreude (pleasure in watching Goldman shamed for the pain it inflicted on others) is in full swing.
It all sounds eerily familiar to the wealth transfer maneuver by Goldman Sachs Trading Company in the asset bubble of 1928. The Trading Company was a closed end fund (called a trust in those days) that Goldman Sachs created and offered to the public at $104 a share, stuffed with conflicted investments while paying Goldman a hefty management fee, only to end up a few years after the 1929 crash trading at a buck and change. On May 20, 1932, Walter Sachs, President of the Goldman Sachs Trading Company, was grilled by the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. The implication was the same as the current round of Senate hearings: Goldman royally fleeced its customers to line its own pockets.
Security lawyers who watched the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations grill Goldman Sachs employees on April 27, 2010 hopefully were more eagle-eyed than investment guru Warren Buffet, who is now echoing the same refrain as Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, that the firm has done nothing wrong and is being unfairly pummeled. Never mind that Mr. Buffet has $5 bilsky invested in Goldman on which he is earning 10 percent. (Goldman employees like to refer to $1…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Market Manipulation, Systemic Risk and Fraud, Pure and Simple, And It Continues Today
by ilene - April 28th, 2010 2:28 am
Market Manipulation, Systemic Risk and Fraud, Pure and Simple, And It Continues Today
Courtesy of JESSE’S CAFÉ AMÉRICAIN
This article by the Financial Times should remove any doubt in anyone’s mind that Goldman Sachs was willfully selling fraudulent financial instruments. It appears that they were working in conjunction with Ratings Agencies, Mortgage Origination Firms, and Hedge Funds to cheat investors.
"Cheat" means to circumvent or distort the normal price discovery process through misrepresentation, price manipulation, and omissions and distortion of key data.
Carl Levin summarized the situation in his opening statement this morning in tying together various Congressional hearings and investigations into aspects of the recent financial crisis and the underlying frauds. It sounds remarkably like the frauds that Enron had so recently inflicted on the American public.
In particular, Congressman Levin gave a good description of the key role that derivatives played in this control fraud.
"Of special concern was Goldman’s marketing of what are known as “synthetic” financial instruments. Ordinarily, the financial risk in a market, and hence the risk to the economy at large, is limited because the assets traded are finite. There are only so many houses, mortgages, shares of stock, bushels of corn or barrels of oil in which to invest.
But a synthetic instrument has no real assets. It is simply a bet on the performance of the assets it references. That means the number of synthetic instruments is limitless, and so is the risk they present to the economy. Synthetic structures referencing high-risk mortgages garnered hefty fees for Goldman Sachs and other investment banks. They assumed an ever-larger share of the financial markets, and contributed greatly to the severity of the crisis by magnifying the amount of risk in the system.
Increasingly, synthetics became bets made by people who had no interest in the referenced assets. Synthetics became the chips in a giant casino, one that created no economic growth even when it thrived, and then helped throttle the economy when the casino collapsed."
This is also a good description of the basis of the emerging scandal in the silver market, and other commodity markets such as those that Enron manipulated, in which synthetic bets are being used to manipulate price, and improbable sales are being misrepresented under the cover of secrecy and opaque markets as…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Pelosi Tactic for Health-Care Vote Would Raise Legal Questions
by ilene - March 18th, 2010 2:53 pm
Pelosi Tactic for Health-Care Vote Would Raise Legal Questions
By Greg Stohr at Bloomberg
March 18 (Bloomberg) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be creating new grounds for a court challenge to the proposed U.S. health-care overhaul as she considers using a mechanism that would avoid a vote on the full legislation.
Pelosi said this week she might use a parliamentary technique that would “deem” House members to have passed the Senate’s health-care plan by voting for a more politically palatable package of changes.
Some legal scholars question whether that approach can be squared with the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s 1998 declaration that the two houses of Congress must approve “precisely the same text” before a bill can become a law.
“Any process that does not result in the House taking of yays and nays on statutory text identical to what passed the Senate is constitutionally problematic,” said Jonathan Adler, a professor who runs the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University’s law school in Cleveland… more here.>>
See Also Op-Toon’s Review:
With Polls Overwhelmingly Against Them, Democrats Invoke "Louise Slaughter Rule"
Associated article: Hoover Institution
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
We Need Real Financial Reform That Directly Ends Too Big To Fail
by ilene - March 11th, 2010 12:17 pm
We Need Real Financial Reform That Directly Ends Too Big To Fail
By Senator Ted Kaufman (via Clusterstock)
(In a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) blasted current financial reform proposals. He called for reform that sets strict limits on the size of banks and doesn’t depend on regulatory discretion.)
Introduction: Where the Burden of Proof Lies
Financial regulatory reform is perhaps the most important legislation that the Congress will address for many years to come. Because if we don’t get it right, the consequences of another financial meltdown could truly be devastating.
In the Senate, as we continue to move closer to consideration of a landmark bill, however, we are still far short of addressing some of the fundamental problems – particularly that of “too big to fail” – that caused the last crisis and already have planted the seeds for the next one. And this is happening after months of careful deliberation and negotiations, and just a year and a half after the virtual meltdown of our entire financial system.
Following the Great Depression, the Congress built a legal and regulatory edifice that endured for decades. One of the cornerstones of that edifice was the Glass-Steagall Act, which established a firewall between commercial and investment banking activities. Another was a federally guaranteed insurance fund to back up bank deposits. Other rules were imposed on investors to tamp down rampant speculation, like margin requirements and the uptick rule on short selling.
That edifice worked well to ensure financial stability for decades. But in the past thirty years, the financial industry, like so many others, went through a process of deregulation. Bit by bit, many of the protections and standards put in place by the…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW. She manages the site