The bankers continue their stranglehold over Washington.

Bill Moyers interviewed economist Simon Johnson and U.S. Representative Marcie Kaptur of Ohio about the Wall Street/Washington connection and the picture isn't pretty. In fact, it's terrifying. I highly recommend that you make yourself watch this 30-minute segment. It's a massive problem with no hint of a solution. Here's an excerpt:

BILL MOYERS: Why have we not had the reform that we all knew was being was needed and being demanded a year ago?

SIMON JOHNSON: I think the opportunity the short term opportunity was missed. There was an opportunity that the Obama Administration had. President Obama campaigned on a message of change. I voted for him. I supported him. And I believed in this message. And I thought that the time for change, for the financial sector, was absolutely upon us. This was abundantly apparent by the inauguration in January of this year. . . . And Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff has a saying. He's widely known for saying, 'Never let a good crisis go to waste'. Well, the crisis is over, Bill. The crisis in the financial sector, not for people who own homes, but the crisis for the big banks is substantially over. And it was completely wasted. The Administration refused to break the power of the big banks, when they had the opportunity, earlier this year. And the regulatory reforms they are now pursuing will turn out to be, in my opinion, and I do follow this day to day, you know. These reforms will turn out to be essentially meaningless.

MARCY KAPTUR: When Lincoln ran into trouble, during the Civil War, he got new generals. He brought in Grant. I hope that President Obama will bring in some new generals on the financial front.

BILL MOYERS: Should Geithner be fired? And Summers be fired?

MARCY KAPTUR: I don't think that any individuals who had their hands on creating this mess should be in charge of cleaning it up. I honestly don't think they're capable of it.

BILL MOYERS: Let me show you an excerpt from the speech President Obama made on Wall Street last month, September. Here is the challenge he laid down to the bankers.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

BILL MOYERS: A reality check. Not one CEO of a Wall Street bank was there to hear the President. What do you make of that?

SIMON JOHNSON: Arrogance. Because they have no fear for the government anymore. They have no respect for the President, which I find absolutely extraordinary and shocking. All right? And I think they have no not an ounce of gratitude to the American people, who saved them, their jobs, and the way they run the world.

Continue ReadingThe bankers continue their stranglehold over Washington.

Matt Taibbi on economic death by short-selling

In this month's Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi once again takes on Wall Street with an article entitled "Wall Street's Naked Swindle." This article is not yet available online. Taibbi's focus this time is naked short selling. Taibbi has proven to be an excellent teacher of abstruse financial concepts, including the concept of short selling, and also including the insidious practice of naked short selling. With this technique (and others) Wall Street has turned the economy into "a giant asset-stripping scheme, one whose purpose is to suck up the last bits of meat from the carcass of the middle class." Taibbi's article is an excellent read, which is not at all surprising given Taibbi's track record. The bottom line is that naked short selling is a "flat-out counterfeiting scheme." How bad is the widespread use of this technique?

That this particular scam played such a prominent role in the demise of [Bear and Lehman] was supremely ironic. After all, the boom that had ballooned both companies to fantastic heights was basically a counterfeit economy, a mountain of paste that Wall Street had built to replace the legitimate business it no longer had. By the middle of the Bush years, the great investment banks like Bear and Lehman no longer made their money financing real businesses and creating jobs.

As Taibbi then reminds us, there is more than one way to counterfeit. Consider credit default swaps:

If you squint hard enough, you can see that the derivative-driven economy of the past decade has always, in a way, been about counterfeiting. At their most basic level, innovations like the ones that triggered the global collapse-credit default swaps and the collateralized debt obligations-were employed for the primary purpose of synthesizing out of thin air those revenue flows that are dying industrial economy was no longer pumping into the financial bloodstream. The basic concept in almost every case with the same: replacing hard assets with complex formulas that, once unwound, would prove to be backed by promises and IOUs instead of real stuff.

In this related piece, Taibbi further discusses "naked short selling":

Again, a lot of this stuff is complicated and not only hard for people outside the finance world to follow, but kind of, well, boring as well. But it’s through these tiny regulatory loopholes, these little nooks and crannies, that the economy gets manipulated. The effect of all of these regulatory gaps has been to transform Wall Street from a means of connecting capital to good business ideas into a giant casino, where the object of the game is shaving little slices off the great flows of money as you push them back and forth using a great big toolbox of manipulative techniques. This is one of the tools.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi on economic death by short-selling

Matt Taibbi goes to war against Goldman Sachs

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi is one of my heroes. I've often recommended his investigative pieces at DI. Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone article is an all-out attack on Goldman Sachs as the culprit behind the bubbles and busts. No, they don't "just happen." [Note: the full article is here]. No, Goldman Sachs isn't the only culpable entity, but Goldman serves well as a deserving target for the kinds of criminal abuses that have destabilized the U.S. economy and crushed the savings of so many people. Here's one example of many by Taibbi, this one explaining how it was that so many shitty mortgages were approved by lenders across the United States. Step One for this problem (as it is for so many other problems with the economy) is to eliminate sane standards for evaluating the economic worth of commodities, individuals and entities. The first step has the intentional function of destroying the possibility of honest valuation, thereby setting the stage for confusing and misleading investors:

Goldman's role in the sweeping global disaster that was the housing bubble is not hard to trace. Here again, the basic trick was a decline in underwriting standards, although in this case the standards weren't in IPOs but in mortgages. By now almost everyone knows that for decades mortgage dealers insisted that home buyers be able to produce a down payment of 10 percent or more, show a steady income and good credit rating, and possess a real first and last name. Then, at the dawn of the new millennium, they suddenly threw all that shit out the window and started writing mortgages on the backs of napkins to cocktail waitresses and ex-cons carrying five bucks and a Snickers bar.

Beware, that if you watch the videos of Taibbi explaining this blatant robbery of investors and taxpayer, as well as the Democrat complicity with this mess, you will seethe. You will feel betrayed.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi goes to war against Goldman Sachs

Nothing about our economic system has really been fixed, or even diagnosed, and time is running out.

According to SANDY B. LEWIS and WILLIAM D. COHAN, nothing about our economic system has really been fixed or even diagnosed, and time is running out. This is the theme of a powerfully and clearly written Op-ed piece in today's New York Times, entitled "The Economy Is Still at the Brink":

We’re concerned that nothing has really been fixed. We’re doubly concerned that people appear to feel the worst of the storm is over — and in this, they are aided and abetted by a hugely popular and charismatic president and by the fact that the Dow has increased by 35 percent or so since Mr. Obama started to lay out his economic plans in March. But wishing for improvement and managing by the Dow’s swings are a fool’s game . . .The storm is not over, not by a long shot.

Lewis, who owns a brokerage house and Cohan, a Wall Street banker, succinctly present the problem and some solutions:

Six months ago, nobody believed that our banking system was well designed, functioning smoothly or properly regulated — so why then are we so desperately anxious to restore that model as the status quo? . . . Instead of hauling out the new drywall to cover up the existing studs, let’s seriously consider ripping down the entire structure, dynamiting the foundation and building a new system that rewards taking prudent risks, allocates capital where it is needed, allows all investors to get accurate and timely financial information and increases value to shareholders and creditors.

The authors lay out numerous areas of concern, many of them in the form of pointed questions. Why, indeed, haven't we taken steps to change the system? As Einstein once said, insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Lewis and Cohan urge President Obama to take these real steps, to get serious about the faux solution so far imposed (the massive injection of federal money in the absence of any systematic fix).

Instead of promising the imminent return of good times, why isn’t Mr. Obama talking more about the importance of living within our means and not spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need? . . . We are 139 days into his presidency, and while there is still plenty of hope that Mr. Obama will fulfill his mandate, his record on searching out the causes of the financial crisis has not been reassuring.

Lewis and Cohan's Op-ed is must-reading and disturbing reading.

Continue ReadingNothing about our economic system has really been fixed, or even diagnosed, and time is running out.

How to really reform the SEC

Dan Smolin asks a good question: Why should we assume that the SEC's Mary Schapiro will make a U-turn in 2009, given that Schapiro has spent her entire career inviting brokerages to "self-regulate" and doing everything in her power to keep consumers at bay when they are ripped off and kept in the dark by brokerages? The easy answer is that we shouldn't assume that Schapiro will all of a sudden go to bat for the consumers. After all, Schapiro "has been at the very center of a failed regulatory process for the past two decades." We know where her loyalties lie, just like we know that Tim Geithner will never turn hard against Wall Street to clean up the corruption (see here for more details on Geithner--and here). Truly, years of actions speak much more loudly than months of words for both Schapiro and Geithner. I am convinced that Obama doesn't have the horses he needs to clean up Wall Street corruption. It's a typical modern conundrum where you need a highly motivated powerful outsider to get the job down, but there simply aren't enough highly motivated powerful outsiders. If Mary Schapiro had even an iota of interest in protecting consumers, Smolin wouldn't be needing to advocate for the following changes he is now pushing--they would have been a reality years ago:

1. Abolish the mandatory arbitration system and give investors back their constitutional rights;

2. Abolish "self regulation" by FINRA, which is a sham. The brokerage industry should be regulated by a governmental authority with the power to do so effectively. The SEC would be the likely agency to do so, with the right leadership;

3. Require brokerage statements to:

(a) Disclose the risk of every portfolio, as measured by standard deviation; (b) Compare the returns of every portfolio to a portfolio indexed to benchmarks of comparable risk; and (c) Disclose the "cost equity" of the portfolio, which is the amount the investor must make to break even, after payment of commissions, fees and margin interest. Common sense, right? Why aren't these reforms a reality? Good question. And why is a terribly motivated person like Mary Schapiro still sitting there pretending to be a reformer?

Continue ReadingHow to really reform the SEC