Showing posts with label United States Secretary of the Treasury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States Secretary of the Treasury. Show all posts

Saturday, January 16, 2010

She tried to warn them and got run out of town.

The Warning (PBS) - Brooksley BornImage by k-ideas via Flickr

Obama is right to clobber Wall Street

Published: January 15 2010 20:35 | Last updated: January 15 2010 20:35

The American public dreams of putting bankers on trial. The hearings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which started this week, are a spectacle that comes close to that fantasy. With camera flashes firing, the bankers’ journeys to take the stand have had the drama of the “perp walk”. The quasi-defendants were quizzed, among other things, on the White House’s new plan, revealed this week, for a $90bn tax on banks.

The proposal is political. That much is clear from the timing. The administration announced it ahead of bank bonus season. With US unemployment continuing to rise, the spectacle of Wall Street plutocrats reporting multimillion dollar earnings from bailed-out companies will trigger geysers of rage. This policy should soothe and exploit that popular anger.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Little European support for bank levy - Jan-15
US bank levy will be tax-deductible - Jan-15
Money Supply: One cheer for banking levies - Jan-15
Lex: Obama’s levy - Jan-14
Bankers’ fury - Jan-14
FT Alphaville: From Obama to Europe, with love - Jan-15

But this is not mindless populism. Crisis interventions made US bank creditors and shareholders hundreds of billions of dollars richer. But, for its part, the commonweal is expected to lose $47bn on its initial $125bn equity injection into the banks alone. The American state has a right to correct that imbalance.

The details of the proposal will necessarily be a cause of argument. The White House has settled on using the levy to pay for losses on the troubled asset relief programme. But the reasoning for targeting this amount of money is muddled. Some Tarp losses are nothing to do with the banks, notably expected losses from the car industry bail-outs. And some financial sector costs are excluded, particularly the price of insurance policies that were put in place, and acknowledged in banks’ funding costs, but never called upon. A further complication to the levy is that customers will probably end up paying it.

There is much for reasonable people to disagree on here – and even more for politicians to dispute. But the levy is justified, and it will force the banks to cover the cost they have imposed on society. This tax will draw in cash from banks backed by foreign governments. But other states should follow suit, as Tim Geithner, the US Treasury secretary, has said.

Debate about the levy, however, must not distract from the question of how to construct a financial system where banks can fail safely. In future, it must be easier for bank debt to be turned into common equity in a crisis, and the fate of insolvent banks’ counter-parties must be made clearer to prevent the panic that followed the Lehman bankruptcy. Capital requirements must also be raised.

For cases when regulators fear a bank may be too big to fail, the authorities should work out a model for ex ante insurance premiums, payable to the state. Such a structure, combined with extra-high capital requirements for these overgrown institutions, should create strong incentives for these companies to slim down. It should, in addition, make sure that they cannot profit from the public guarantees that their bloatedness brings them. States must not continue acting as omniline insurers, guaranteeing everything for free.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Hoffa shows Geithner how to run things

Memo to Treasury Secretary im Geithner: If you want to survive another year in Washington, start channeling your inner Jimmy Hoffa. Yes, Hoffa James P. Hoffa, that is -- the current Teamsters boss and the one man who has stared down Goldman Sachs and the big-money crowd on Wall Street and come out a winner. While our Treasury Secretary has been busy covering the friendly tracks he laid as NY Fed Chief, in recent weeks Hoffa has showed Lloyd Blankfein and Co. who's boss -- and did so without even breaking a sweat. The Hoffa v. Wall Street battle began back in December and received little notice, but taxpayers should pay attention to the kind of deal that can be cut when a tough cookie like Hoffa is driving the negotiations. The dispute centered around YRC, parent company of the Yellow and Roadway fleets, the nation's biggest trucker and employer of 30,000 of Hoffa's union brothers. Loaded with debt, and saddled with a CEO who spent more time on CNBC in recent years than Jim Cramer, YRC was headed for a year-end rendezvous with bankruptcy unless it could convince most of its bondholders to swap their debt for stock. That's a tricky proposition under any circumstances, but YRC had another obstacle to face. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of credit-default insurance on YRC debt would pay off if the company went bust, giving bondholders an incentive to see the company go Chapter 11. Hoffa understood this and decided to play hardball -- he accused Goldman, Deutsche Bank and a handful of hedge funds of trafficking in YRC's credit default insurance and raised the prospect of his 18-wheelers parked all the way from Park Avenue to Broad Street in protest. He also turned up the political heat with union-connected lawmakers in Washington. In the end, the bullying worked like magic and by Jan. 1, fully 88 percent of bondholders agree to participate in the exchange. Bankruptcy was averted, and Goldman Sachs was eventually praised for helping YRC get "over the goal line" by buying up YRC debt in the marketplace in order to exchange the paper for stock. A triumphant Hoffa called it his "first foray into high finance." Unfortunately, Hoffa looks to have a brighter future in that area than the man who currently commands the US Treasury Department. Compare the YRC drama with the slowly evolving tale of Geithner's role in the 2008 back-door bailout of Goldman Sachs and its subsequent cover-up. You'll see why taxpayers sense something is very wrong about this story, and rightly so. As we're now learning by the day, Goldman nearly bankrupted AIG in the fall of 2008 -- much as YRC's credit default holders almost bankrupt that company last month. The key difference is that in AIG's case, the taxpayer was left holding the bag, while Goldman and AIG live to trade another day. But it gets worse. Not only did AIG pay off those contracts to Goldman and a dozen other banks to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar -- or a remarkable $62 billion -- Geithner's NY Fed insisted AIG cross out any reference to the full price of the payout. As e-mails released by Congress last week show, the idea was to keep the public in the dark. The final cost to taxpayers from the AIG rescue -- $182 billion, or about half of the entire US defense budget. Imagine the bargain Hoffa would have driven home for US taxpayers had he been representing our interests the way he did that of his union brethren. Fifty cents on the dollar? You better believe that would have been at least his starting point. And why not? Those who profited from the government bailout of AIG, led principally by Goldman Sachs, obviously think that the alphabet soup of derivatives were spun in such a fine web that no mere mortal could never grasp what was really going on. But the public is not so naive. Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. understood this and rode to the rescue of his constituents. It's too bad Geithner didn't do the same for his constituents, the US taxpayers.
terrykeenan@email.com



Wednesday, January 6, 2010

It's really very simple...



The Theft  ( inside job)
Well, here is a quick reminder of how the theft of your money actually happened and in spite of what Obama says it was really, really  simple.  The government ie. the New York Federal Reserve Chairman  agreed  to pay the banks 100% of the price of the swaps that the banks including Goldman Sachs had bought from AIG.
Its simple really, Goldman Sacks bought the “swaps” ( don’t worry about what that means it doesn’t really matter) for 40 cents on the dollar and the  Government gave them 100 cents on the dollar for them. That’s it, that’ s the brilliant “complicated” solution that Geithner’s brain belched out

This theft of your money  was facilitated  directly at by the then  Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York just  as Bloomberg reported after viewing the documents , “Part of a sentence in the document was crossed out. It contained a blank space that was intended to show the amount of the haircut the banks would take, according to people who saw the term sheet.” (The term  “haircut” is financial slang representing  the discount to par that an assets sells for.  Say you bought a stock for $10 and sold it for $6 you got a 40% “haircut”.)
Clearly the FED initially sought to not pay full price to Goldman Sachs and a few other banks but rather, rightfully, allow them to take responsibility for their mistakes.  The Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank himself intervened and with a magic marker blacked out that sentence and gave Goldman Sachs an instant 60% profit. The total price tag was $62 Billion dollars for assets that were bought  for about $29.6 billion.  Goldman Sachs got the lions share of that to the tune of $14 Billion of our money over a 14 month period.  Isn’t high finance grand when you can steal from the public with the permission and backig of the government? Just buy any garbage you can and if you lose money, hey, no sweat, Obama and the libs will make sure you’ll have a profit.

Be the resistance



The Payoff
The reward that the Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve got for stealing your money and giving it to Goldman Sachs?
Well, well, well, you see, Goldman Sachs had just gotten a $5,000,0000,0000 ( five billion dollar) loan form Warren Buffet. We can’t possibly let Warren Buffet lose money just because you are unemployed can we? Of course not, if you are unemployed and can’t give Buffet any money, why that’s no problem,  the government will just put your children and grand children in debt..while Obama, Buffet and Soros  and Gorelick and Geitner fly around in Air Force One. ( When the hell are we going to see the pics from inside Air force One anyway?)
OK back to the reward given to  the Chairman of the new York Federal Reserve Bank  for taking your and your children and your grand children money? Well, he became the Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner!
Remember how the lib crooks and their lackeys in the media howled like banshees  whenever anyone questioned the logic of giving the treasury job to a crook who couldn’t even figure out his own taxes? Now you know why. It’s because he gave your money and your children and grandchildren’s  money to Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffet, George Soros etc. They in turn give the money to Obama and ACORN and you and your family have become surfs indentured to the cronies in high finance.
Apropos, Buffet gets $500,000,000 ( five hundred million) dollars in interest  alone, every year because they stole your money to bail  out Goldman Sachs, but its OK because we get to hear how brilliant he is.
The Backlash?
Fast forward to now, Goldman Sachs announces that the bonuses will not be cash and the media hails it as the second coming of Christ. Truth is that the bonuses will be astronomical and will be in stock. The future recipients of these bonuses are not worried about losing money if the stocks go drop in price, they’ll hedge against that.  What worries them is what your reaction will be once you find out how much they made and if the financial system collapse because of the plan to cause the “golden crisis”. For that too they are finding ways to hedge, they are buying guns. Yes that’s right Godman Sachs and co. are very concerned that blogs such as this one will put out the truth and you might have objections to quietly selling your children into serfdom so that Geithner can buy another Bently, and Jamie Gorelick can get another ten million dollar bonus  or Soros and  Buffet can buy another private jet. They are buying hand guns.  I bet with all that money they can probably get a very nice set of sequentially numbered Les Baers. Oh and just for the record, unless you are a Goldman Sachs big wig, good luck buying  a gun in Mayor Bloomberg’s  NYC – that’s reserved for the elites not for the likes of us rednecks!
You can see some of the Goldman Sachs Directors here

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Who are these people?
I am not referring to the pathetic parents of "Balloon Boy," whose fake drama I have been unable to escape while on the treadmill this week, thanks to my gym's insistence on tuning its flat-screen TVs to Wolf Blitzer's nonstop self-parody.
The Colorado incident was significant only in the tawdriness of those who perpetrated the made-for-TV scam and their allies in the mindless media who covered this sham "reality" so relentlessly. But even so it was enough to push aside most consideration of the true hoax reported last week with far less fervor: the obscene rewards that Wall Street bankers bestowed upon themselves for ripping off our economy.
The people I want to know more about are the superrich who expect to be rewarded for their failures, like the folks at Goldman Sachs who will receive $16.71 billion in bonuses--an average of $530,000 per employee--this year after their company did as much as any to bring the world economy to the brink of disaster.
"The Guys from Goldman Sachs" is what The New York Times once called them in recognition of their chokehold on the federal government. Their power is marked by the two treasury secretaries who led the fight to legally enable and then reward Wall Street for its obscene excesses. Why wasn't there a CNN stakeout at the homes of former Goldman-execs-turned-treasury-chiefs Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson aimed at finding out how they feel about the almost $7 billion profit that Goldman Sachs made in the last two quarters in the wake of the government's bailout of the firm?
They were both deeply involved last fall, along with Rubin protégé and current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then head of the New York Fed, in saving Goldman as archrival Lehman Brothers was forced to go belly up. As opposed to Lehman, Goldman was allowed to change its status and become a commercial bank qualifying for Federal Reserve and TARP funding. Goldman received $10 billion in immediate bailout funds, and we are supposed to be grateful that the company has paid it back in return for an end to any pretense of government control over its executive compensation. The additional cool $12.9 billion that Goldman received from the government as a pass-through from the bailout of AIG to cover Goldman's toxic paper is money the investment bank has no intention of ever paying back.
The rationale for saving Goldman and the other too-big-to-fail usurers was that the rescue would increase lending to businesses and consumers and thus revive the economy. But Goldman made money last quarter by shunning such loans and instead putting the government-guaranteed low-interest money it now can borrow toward acquisitions and bond and stock trading. As The New York Times reported: "Titans like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are making fortunes in hot areas like trading stocks and bonds, rather than the ho-hum business of lending people money."
Under the headline "Bailout Helps Fuel a New Era of Wall Street Wealth," Times reporter Graham Bowley detailed many of the enabling favors that the government, under two presidents, extended to Goldman, like clearing the way for the company to issue bonds guaranteed by the FDIC. "It may come as a surprise that one of the most powerful forces driving the resurgence on Wall Street," the Times reported, "is not the banks but Washington. Many of the steps that policy makers took last year to stabilize the financial system--reducing interest rates to near zero, bolstering big banks with taxpayer money, guaranteeing billions of dollars of financial institution debts--helped set the stage for this new era of Wall Street wealth."
It should not come as a surprise to Timothy Geithner, who, as The Wall Street Journal reported last week, talks to the honchos of Goldman more often than to members of Congress ostensibly in charge of banking legislation. Nor will it shock the lobbyists for Wall Street--augmented, as The Nation reported last week, by the pro-Goldman efforts of former Democratic congressman and faux populist Dick Gephardt--that the rich will emerge richer from this deep recession in which so many Americans have lost everything. The die is cast: People working in finance grabbed two-thirds of the growth in GDP, with the rest of us scrambling for the other third.
Nor will the situation change anytime soon. The House Financial Services Committee is in charge of writing new rules to protect consumers, but as the respected Sunlight Foundation reports, 27 of the 71 members of that committee receive at least one-fourth of their campaign funds from the financial industry, with the rest of the committee members not far behind.
Now if we could get one of the banking lobbyists to float a duct-taped flying saucer balloon, Wolf Blitzer might cover the real hoax.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Pissed off and pitchforked

Geithner Aides Reaped Millions Working for Banks, Hedge Funds


By Robert Schmidt

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.

The advisers include Gene Sperling, who last year took in $887,727 from Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies, including the firm run by accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford. Another top aide, Lee Sachs, reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from Mariner Investment Group, a New York hedge fund.

As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.

“These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”

While it isn’t unusual for Treasury officials to come from the financial industry, President Barack Obama has been critical of Wall Street, blaming its high-risk, high-pay culture for helping cause the financial-market meltdown.

‘Reckless Behavior’

Speaking to financial executives last month, Obama said: “We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.”

At the same time, the president has promised to change Washington by keeping lobbyists for special interests at a distance and by making decisions in the open.

Sperling and Sachs are each paid $162,900 at the Treasury. Along with four others, they hold the title of counselor to Geithner. Sachs, 46, withdrew earlier this year from consideration to be the Treasury’s top domestic finance official, a job that would have required Senate confirmation.

Geithner’s predecessor, Henry Paulson, brought on a coterie of non-confirmed advisers from Goldman Sachs at the end of his term. Paulson, who had been the firm’s chief executive officer, defended the arrangement as necessary to quickly bring in top talent when the financial system was on the verge of collapse.

Awaiting Confirmation

The title of counselor had been generally reserved for those awaiting confirmation. Some of Geithner’s aides now work in that capacity, including Lael Brainard, who has been nominated to be undersecretary for international affairs, and Jeffrey Goldstein, the nominee to be undersecretary for domestic finance.

“The use of counselors provides an opportunity to bring valuable expertise into the department to serve in a close capacity with the secretary,” said Rob Nichols, a former Treasury official under Secretaries Paul O’Neill and John Snow, neither of whom relied extensively on unconfirmed aides. “It’s important that they complement, but don’t supplant, the Senate confirmed appointments.”

The use of unconfirmed counselors can cut both ways. It allows Geithner to bring in staff quickly by avoiding the arduous confirmation process. On the other hand, the aides don’t get as tough a vetting by the White House or Congress and remain less accountable than Senate-confirmed officials.

Understanding Markets

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the department needs people with a deep understanding of markets and the financial system, especially as it works to fend off the worst recession in half a century.

“The secretary thought that the best way to utilize their talents was to allow these individuals to provide advice to the secretary on policy issues through appointments as counselor,” Williams said.

All of Geithner’s counselors are subject to federal ethics rules, including a pledge to avoid contact with their former firms for at least a year, Williams added.

Most officials at the Treasury who have been approved by Congress come from academic, legal or non-Wall Street backgrounds. For example, Geithner’s deputy, Neal Wolin, was president and chief operating officer for property and casualty operations at insurer Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. in Hartford, Connecticut. Michael Barr, the assistant secretary for financial institutions, was a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

Merrill Lynch Executive

An exception is Herb Allison, who runs the office that administers the financial rescue. He had been chief executive officer of mortgage finance company Fannie Mae and retirement- services firm TIAA-CREF, and before that was a longtime executive at Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York.

Along with Sperling and Sachs, Geithner’s inner circle also includes counselor Lewis Alexander, the former chief economist at Citigroup; Chief of Staff Mark Patterson, who was a lobbyist at Goldman Sachs, and Matthew Kabaker, a deputy assistant secretary who worked at private equity firm Blackstone Group LP. Patterson’s and Kabaker’s jobs did not require confirmation.

One counselor who doesn’t have a finance background is Jake Siewert, a press secretary for President Bill Clinton who came to the Treasury after working as a vice president at New York- based Alcoa Inc., the largest U.S. aluminum producer.

Alexander, who left Citigroup in March to join the Treasury, was paid $2.4 million in 2008 and the first few months of 2009, according to his financial-disclosure form. He advises Geithner on economic trends and does research on financial markets.

Toxic Assets

Kabaker, who works on domestic finance policy and helped craft the Treasury plan to spur banks to sell their toxic assets, earned $5.8 million working on private equity deals at Blackstone in 2008 and 2009 before joining the Treasury at the end of January, his disclosure form shows. Much of the compensation was in stock that Kabaker, who worked at Blackstone for 10 years, was awarded when it went public in 2007.

On his disclosure, Sachs estimated that he would receive $3.4 million in income from Mariner. The precise figure was not given because the books hadn’t closed on a number of partnerships when he joined the department in January. As of Feb. 23, when he signed the document, Sachs said he was also owed a 2008 bonus where the value was “not ascertainable.”

Sachs’s former firm also had agreed to repurchase his shares in Mariner Partners Inc., an investment fund. Sachs estimated his income from the fund at $1 million to $5 million. Sachs, who declined to comment, also specializes in domestic finance.

Work on Education

In Sperling’s primary job, he was paid $116,653 by the Council on Foreign Relations for work related to education in developing countries.

Sperling’s disclosure shows he supplemented his salary through a variety of consulting jobs, board seats, speaking fees and fellowships, to bring his total income to more than $2.2 million in the 13 months ending in January.

He was paid $480,051 as a director of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and $250,000 for providing quarterly economic briefings to two hedge fund firms, Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP and Sterling Stamos Capital Management.

Sperling spoke at a Washington event hosted by the Houston- based Stanford Group Co. in November 2008, three months before its chairman was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly bilking investors of $7 billion. He also spoke at a Washington event in October 2007 that was sponsored by Citigroup, which has received $45 billion in government assistance.

Paid Speeches

Sperling, 50, was paid for his speeches through the Harry Walker Agency, which books speakers. His disclosure form does not list how much he was paid for each speech.

Sperling also drew a $137,500 salary from Bloomberg News for writing a monthly column and appearing on television, according to his disclosure.

Goldman Sachs paid Sperling the $887,727 for advice on its charitable giving. That made the bank his highest-paying employer. Even Geithner’s chief of staff Patterson, who was a full-time lobbyist at the firm, did not make as much as Sperling did on a part-time basis. Patterson reported earning $637,492 from Goldman Sachs last year.

“My sole work for Goldman Sachs was as lead consultant on the creation, design, and initial implementation of ‘10,000 Women,’ their $100 million philanthropic effort to give business and leadership education to poor women around the world,” Sperling said.

His total income of $2.2 million was unusually high, Sperling added.

The Wall Street ties are troubling to some advocates for investors. “Where is the transparency this administration promised?” asked Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant at the SEC. “You just wonder, who is representing middle Americans?”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Famine sculpture in front of the International...Image via Wikipedia

I just read in a news articles that AIG's executives slated for another round of mind-numbing bonuses were pointing to laws as reasons why the bonuses could not be interfered with by legislators or regulators. OK - suppose one agrees with them. I find such executives' as well as many other executives' throughout the financial industry respect for law admirable. I find their selective respect for law despicable--and it has also proven to be demonstrably hazardous to the health of the country.

Inevitably legislators and regulators will back off because they do not want to be seen as trifling with laws. What's puzzling to me however is why these legislators and regulators recognizing that such bonuses are outrageous and also corrosive of the financial and social system do not utilize other relevant laws which would be effective in controlling heedless and in many cases criminal executive behavior.

Executives in the financial sector who were oblivious to laws in amassing their fortunes now try to rely on laws to protect these fortunes and also to increase them. There are laws against fraud, unfair trade practices, and other germane matters. As the executives loudly now call for respect for the law, the legislators and regulators play along with them--while both groups concertedly look away from other laws. Thus the charade of the equitable application of the law goes on.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/will-we-curb-wall-streets_b_320549.html

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]