Sign the Petition
Audit The Fed
Donate
Freedom isn't free!
Please help FedUpUSA stay online.


FedUpUSA in the Media

FedUpUSA YouTube Channel

The FedUpUSA Video

Karl Denninger (TickerGuy) on CNBC

Karl Denninger (TickerGuy) on Glenn Beck

FedUpUSA Co-Founder and Coordinator of the Washington DC Toilet Bowl Protest interviewed by the AP

FedUpUSA Founder Stephanie Jasky interviewed on Plains Radio

FedUpUSA Founder Stephanie Jasky's article 912 Protest Washington DC - What Was It All About? as seen on The Right Side of Life
Calendar
March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Welcome to FedUpUSA 2.0

FedUpUSA Logo

FedUpUSA is your one-stop source for all the up-to-the-minute breaking news regarding the global financial crisis.  We are committed to bringing you the truth about what is really happening, as opposed to the fodder that is shown in the mainstream media.  We believe the root of the problem is corruption in our financial industry and in our government.  It is our goal to expose and reveal the corruption as well as to educate the public about our economic and financial systems so they can fight back.

STOP THE LOOTING AND START PROSECUTING!

FedUpUSA’s Video (produced 2 years ago; quite prophetic)

Click Here To Listen To ’Everyday American’, Written by Jim Martin, Performed by Paul Pace

The Weakest Bang for our Wilting Dollar – How we Overpaid for the Bailouts and were left with a Wilting Economy Propped up by Government Spending. Paying $446,000 Per Loan Modification and $43,000 for Homes that were already going to be Purchased.

 

The Weakest Bang for our Wilting Dollar – How we Overpaid for the Bailouts and were left with a Wilting Economy Propped up by Government Spending. Paying $446,000 Per Loan Modification and $43,000 for Homes that were already going to be Purchased.

Posted by mybudget360

So much horrible policy has occurred since the economy entered recession that the majority of Americans are shell shocked with each day of news.  It used to be that a billion dollars in toxic assets was enough to garner some movement out of the market.  Now, we talk about trillion dollar deficits as if they were normal.  Take for example the ridiculous home buyer tax credit.  Let us set aside for a second that massive home buying and speculation led us into this financial crisis in the first place.  The home buyer tax credit was basically a gift to people for doing something they were already going to do.  Keep in mind that even without the tax credit, people were going to buy homes.  But this is what we are left with:

“(Las Vegas Sun) It’s awful policy,” says Andrew Jakabovics, associate director for housing and economics at the liberal Center for American Progress. “It’s incredibly expensive. It’s not well targeted.”

We paid $8,000 to at least 1.5 million people to do something they were going to do anyway,” Jakabovics says.

“A heck of a lot of people would have bought the house anyway,” says Ted Gayer, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

The tax break, due to expire at the end of November, is on track to cost $15 billion, twice what Congress had planned. In other words, it will cost $43,000 for every new homebuyer who would not have bought a house without the tax break.”

This is policy gone bad like milk left out on a hot sunny day.  In many parts of the country $43,000 will buy someone a home or a condo.  Instead, we will blow through $15 billion to encourage people to buy something they were already going to buy.  This is the kind of policy that we have had for decades.  But the game is hitting a massive wall.  For the first time in record keeping history household debt has contracted on a year over year basis:

Much of this comes from American households pulling back on spending but also, banks refusing to lend.  In fact, the bailouts have done nothing that they were promised to do.  First, the banking bailout was quoted as a necessity to keep liquidity in the system.  To the contrary, liquidity is being pulled out of the system.  Wall Street and their corporate public relations machines would like to convince you that banks are now having to be tighter with their lending given market conditions.  It is amazing how in midsentence banks are able to shape-shift their position to always maximize their own profits but only after they have secured taxpayer money.  If we really wanted to increase liquidity why don’t we just send each family $10,000 to get the economy going?  Is this any less preposterous than paying $43,000 for someone to buy a home they were already going to buy?

If you think that spending more and more and financing each purchase with debt is good for the long-term health of our economy, just look at the following:

Over the last 25 years the U.S. dollar has been cut in half and U.S. households are feeling the effects of this.  We would have felt this earlier in 2000 if it weren’t for the massive housing bubble that was ignited by the Federal Reserve and its spawn investment banks.  All of a sudden, instead of spending money we had and protecting home equity houses became ATMs:

Source:  Center for Retirement Research, Boston College

So even though incomes were stagnant for the decade, the average person on the street thought they were experiencing prosperity but all they were enjoying was a lease on a lifestyle that was no longer supported by underlying fundamentals.  Most Americans are now dealing with this as they see credit card access shut down and access to home equity is gone since home prices have collapsed.  Yet the only sector that seems to be back on its feet is the banking sector.  Or to clarify, the too big to fail banking sector seems to be fine.  Underemployment is still over 17 percent, credit is still pulling back, and states are still seeing faltering revenues:
 

Source:  The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government

Tax collections are a good indicator of the economy since they are derived from working people.  Looking at the stock market is like looking at someone who just hit blackjack 10 times in a row.  At a certain point it needs to reflect reality.  Yet the way we structured the bailouts was as absurd as the three page memo former Treasury Sectary Hank Paulson handed to Congress requesting $700 billion to clean up the toxic assets.  That price tag now sounds cheap!  And guess what?  The toxic assets are still here which is only more proof that banks are two-faced liars that will siphon off every penny from the productive sector of the economy.  As it turned out the $700 billion figure was simply pulled out of thin air by dividing ten percent of GDP ($1.4 trillion) in half according to the former interim Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari:

“(WaPo) In Washington, he used his BlackBerry to determine the bailout sum presented to Congress. His arithmetic: “We have $11 trillion residential mortgages, $3 trillion commercial mortgages. Total $14 trillion. Five percent of that is $700 billion. A nice round number.”

Looking back, he says, he is more confident about the two-by-sixes.

“Seven hundred billion was a number out of the air,” Kashkari recalls, wheeling toward the hex nuts and the bolts. “It was a political calculus. I said, ‘We don’t know how much is enough. We need as much as we can get [from Congress]. What about a trillion?’ ‘No way,’ Hank shook his head. I said, ‘Okay, what about 700 billion?’ We didn’t know if it would work. We had to project confidence, hold up the world. We couldn’t admit how scared we were, or how uncertain.”

So what a shocker that GDP increased by over 5 percent when all was said and done.  It would have been a surprise if it hadn’t.  Yet where did the money go?  The vast majority into the stock market casino.  Was there any massive targeted effort for job creation?  Or what about reforming the financial industry that led us here?  None of that was accomplished.  So today, we have spent or committed $13 trillion on the financial sector with no strings attached.  It is the biggest bank robbery in history and it is happening under our noses.  In fact, people are pulling $700 billion out of thin air apparently just like Goldman Sachs needed every penny from AIG.

Most are familiar with the GDP equation:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports ? imports)

Right now the biggest factor boosting GDP is government spending.  Yet as we have seen with the home buyer tax credit, other programs have been a waste as well.  Take the HAMP program as well backed by $75 billion.  So far, only 168,000 permanent loan modifications have occurred.  So run those numbers:

$75 billion / 168,000 = $446,428 per modification

Now of course, the program still has money left for additional modifications and other gifts to the banks like aiding in short sales.  But do that math.  With $75 billion we could have bought 750,000 homes for $100,000 each.  Policy is so bad right now, we’d be better off just giving the money directly to the people to do whatever they wanted.  Ironically this would stimulate the economy more than continuing down a road of expensive policy that is merely a method of transferring wealth to the banking elite.

The weaker dollar is a symptom of a bigger problem.  The inefficient bailouts are a symptom of a bigger problem.  Our government being controlled by Wall Street is merely the ultimate conclusion of four decades of egregious mismanagement and corporate welfare.  If the government won’t do what is obviously right to reform the system then average Americans are left to wonder who is going to reign in Wall Street?

Useless Regulation: Dodd Bill “Empowers” Fed To Do Nothing

 

Useless Regulation: Dodd Bill “Empowers” Fed To Do Nothing

In what amounts to a dog and pony show without dogs and without ponies, Dodd Bill Empowers Regulators to Limit Size of Financial Firms.

U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, speaks about overhauling U.S. financial regulation. Dodd, speaking at a news conference in Washington, unveiled a plan to overhaul financial rules and empower the Federal Reserve to break up large firms that pose a “grave threat” to U.S. economic stability.

Seriously, does anyone think Bernanke would act on this? Hell, Bernanke did not see a housing crisis or a recession. Bernanke thought he could put a floor on interest rates at 2% by paying interest on reserve. No one was more useless than Bernanke.

Take a look at Goldman Sachs. It is preposterous that a hedge fund, (and that is all Goldman Sachs is), can borrow money from the Fed at absurdly low rates and speculate in whatever the hell it wants.

Is this a systemic risk? Of course it is.
Does Bernanke or the Fed want to do anything about it? Of course not.

Beyond absurdities in lending arrangements, Goldman Sachs routinely trades against advice it give its clients. Where is the separation of duties? I think giving advice to clients and trading against it is fraudulent, at the very least it is unethical.

Does the Fed want to do anything about that? Of Course not.

What about off balance sheet assets at Citigroup and JPMorgan?
Does the Fed want to do anything about that? Of Course not.

What about the Pay Option ARMs mess at Wells Fargo?
Does the Fed want to do anything about that? Of Course not.

Dodd’s bill, assuming it gets passed, is much ado about nothing.

If Congress really wanted to do something it would require physical (not logical, within one company) separation of duties, it would prohibit trading against clients, and it would prevent off balance sheet accounting. Instead, Dodd’s bill “empowers” the Fed to do nothing. And “nothing” is exactly what the Fed will do.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Misconceptions about Money and Velocity

 

Misconceptions about Money and Velocity

Inquiring minds are interested in velocity and money. John Mauldin discusses both in The Implications of Velocity. Unfortunately, Mauldin perpetuates three widely believed myths in his article.

Misconception #1: Money Supply Needs To Grow

“Now, there is no exact way to determine the right size of the money supply. It definitely needs to grow each year by at least the growth in the size of the economy, the population, and productivity, or deflation will appear. But if money supply grows too much then you have inflation.”

Reality #1:

Money supply most assuredly does not need to grow each year by the size of the economy, by increases in population, or anything else as is widely believed.

An increase in money supply confers no overall economic benefit whatsoever. Over time, money simply buys less and less.

Please consider a few re-ordered sentences of Rothbard’s classic text: What Has Government Done to Our Money?

Money is a commodity used as a medium of exchange.

Like all commodities, it has an existing stock, it faces demands by people to buy and hold it. Like all commodities, its “price” in terms of other goods is determined by the interaction of its total supply, or stock, and the total demand by people to buy and hold it. People “buy” money by selling their goods and services for it, just as they “sell” money when they buy goods and services.

Money is not an abstract unit of account. It is not a useless token only good for exchanging. It is not a “claim on society”. It is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.

What Is The Proper Supply Of Money?

Continuing from the book …

Now we may ask: what is the supply of money in society and how is that supply used? In particular, we may raise the perennial question, how much money “do we need”?

Must the money supply be regulated by some sort of “criterion,” or can it be left alone to the free market?

All sorts of criteria have been put forward: that money should move in accordance with population, with the “volume of trade,” with the “amounts of goods produced,” so as to keep the “price level” constant, etc.

But money differs from other commodities in one essential fact. And grasping this difference furnishes a key to understanding monetary matters.

When the supply of any other good increases, this increase confers a social benefit; it is a matter for general rejoicing. More consumer goods mean a higher standard of living for the public; more capital goods mean sustained and increased living standards in the future.

[Yet] an increase in money supply, unlike other goods, [does not] confer a social benefit. The public at large is not made richer. Whereas new consumer or capital goods add to standards of living, new money only raises prices—i.e., dilutes its own purchasing power. The reason for this puzzle is that money is only useful for its exchange value.

[Thus] we come to the startling truth that it doesn’t matter what the supply of money is. Any supply will do as well as any other supply. The free market will simply adjust by changing the purchasing power, or effectiveness of the [monetary-unit] gold-unit .

The online book is a great read and I highly recommend reading it in entirety.

Misconception #2: Falling Velocity Causes Economic Activity to Decrease, Requiring an Increase in Money Supply to Maintain the Status Quo

“If velocity does slow by another 10%, then money supply (M) would have to rise by 10% just to maintain a static economy.”

Reality #2:

Falling velocity is a result of an increased demand to hold money as opposed to a desire to expand productive capacity or borrow to make purchases. In other words, banks do not want to lend and consumers and businesses do not want to borrow. The Fed can print, but it cannot determine where the money goes, or indeed if it goes anywhere at all.

If the Fed increased money supply by 10%, the most likely consequence would be for money to sit or perhaps make its way into non-GDP producing financial speculation. Thus, GDP would not rise by 10%, instead velocity would plunge.

Congress can get into the act by giving away money, as it does with various stimulus plans but that has encouraged little lasting economic activity. Unemployment checks maintain spending on food and essentials but those are low-velocity activities. And as boomers head into retirement, peak spending behind them, velocity is highly likely to continue its downward slide.

By the way, when figuring velocity is it correct to use M1, M2, MZM, Base Money Supply, Austrian Money Supply, or True Money Supply? Obviously the measure of velocity differs widely depending on what definition of money one uses. In general, the broader the measure of money, the lower the resultant velocity.

Misconception #3: In a normal scenario, banks take money and lend it out 9-10 times over.

“And now we come to the policy conundrum for the Fed. They have pumped a great deal of money (liquidity) into the economy. Normally, banks would take that money and multiply it by lending it out (through fractional reserve banking at a potential 9-times factor), increasing velocity and the overall money supply.”

Reality #3: Lending Comes First, Reserves Come Second

Australian economist Steve Keen and I have emphasized reality number 3 on numerous occasions. Please consider Fictional Reserve Lending And The Myth Of Excess Reserves for a lengthy rebuttal to the idea that the Fed expands money supply then banks lend it 10 times over.

Those are three widely believed misconceptions. Unfortunately they continually make the rounds. By the way, John Mauldin is a friend of mine and his columns are usually worth a look.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Middle Class Americans Losing Financial Ground on Retirement – As Stock Market Rebounds more Middle Class Americans Have Less Money and Fewer Jobs. How is Health Care Spending Boosting GDP a Good Thing?

 

Middle Class Americans Losing Financial Ground on Retirement – As Stock Market Rebounds more Middle Class Americans Have Less Money and Fewer Jobs. How is Health Care Spending Boosting GDP a Good Thing?

Posted by mybudget360

As more and more data is released on this Great Recession it is becoming abundantly clear that we have two tracks people are following.  On one track where most travel, we have middle class Americans dealing with the highest unemployment in a generation while seeing their net worth dissolve.  On the other side of the road, the one lane highway for the tiny percent of the extremely wealthy, we see an extraordinary jump in wealth since the depth of the crisis in March of 2009 when the S&P 500 touched that unholy number of 666.  It must seem like a cruel joke that with the stock market being up nearly 70 percent since that low point in 2009, the vast majority of Americans are wondering why they don’t feel much of that rally when they open their wallets.  The reality is that most Americans are not invited to this resurgence and in fact, the destruction of the middle class is partly a reason for this stock market rally.

Take for example what Americans are saving.  A recent survey from the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s annual Retirement Confidence Survey found some startling data:

43% of workers in the survey stated they had less than $10,000 in savings while an amazing 27% of workers said they had $1,000 saved.  Many of these Americans are one illness or a job loss away from being broke (many are called the working poor).  It is no surprise that the survey found that only 16% of those who responded felt comfortable about retiring, the lowest rate in a generation.  What this survey highlights is that more and more middle class Americans are going to struggle in their retirement.  Thanks to the Federal Reserve artificially slamming interest rates lower, many Americans on fixed incomes or Social Security will see no cost of living adjustments even though their daily cost of living items will increase in price.  This is targeted destruction of the middle class.

And keep in mind this survey is comparing 2009 and 2010.  What happened to the rally here?  Workers clearly did not participate in the stock market rally.  Why?  Because a large part of the rally also hinged on “productivity gains” which is a nice euphemism for laying off people and making current workers juice out more production.  So this translates to great profits for the Wall Street elite while unemployment in the last year has done this:

Source:  BLS

It might be hard to save for retirement if you are getting fired.  And that is what millions of Americans experienced in 2009 as the stock market went on a massive rampage as Wall Street was fueled by taxpayer bailout money and decided to load into stocks.  Keep in mind that many of the large multinational companies are making a boatload of their profits internationally.  This is great for those companies but as most Americans know, small business is the juice of the American economy and most small businesses sell to domestic clientele.  A clientele that is increasingly poorer and unemployed.  We used to call this group the middle class.  This isn’t lost on some:

“(RR) Companies in the Standard&Poor 500 stock index had sales of $2.18 trillion in the fourth quarter, up from $2.02 trillion last year, and their earnings tripled. Why? Mainly because they’re global, and selling into fast-growing markets in places like India, China, and Brazil.

America’s biggest companies are also showing fat profits and productivity gains because they continue to slash payrolls and cut expenditures. Alcoa, for example, had $1.5 billion in cash at the end of last year, double what it had on hand at the end of 2008. Sounds terrific until you realize how it did it. By cutting 28,000 jobs – 32 percent of workforce – and slashed capital expenditures 43 percent.

The picture on Main Street is quite the opposite. Small businesses aren’t selling much because they have to rely on American – rather than foreign – consumers, and Americans still aren’t buying much.”

One of the disturbing trends especially when it comes to retirement is the massive increase in health care costs.  It is absurd to use health care costs (i.e., premiums, etc) to inflate GDP but that is exactly what is happening:

Source:  BEA

It is absurd that in 2008, as the economy was flying off a cliff and other service industries were contracting health care still managed to pull in 0.31 of the 0.32 gain in the entire year for this sector.  Take a look at 2009.  What service sector did the best in another troubled year?  Health care.  So to say that gouging Americans like the 39% hike in premiums in California is good for GDP is nonsense:

“(ABC) Reports that Anthem Blue Cross is raising premiums on some customers by 39 percent on March 1, have prompted the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to write a letter to the company, Golden State’s largest private insurer, asking the company to “provide a detailed justification for these rate increases to the public.”

“Additionally, you should make public information on the percent of your individual market premiums that is used for medical care versus the percent that is used for administrative costs,” Sebelius wrote, noting that the profits of Anthem Blue Cross’s parent company, WellPoint Incorporated, have soared.”

Ask any middle class American about their health care costs and the likely story is that prices have gone up consistently over the last decade as incomes have gone stagnant.  How is this good especially when many baby boomers are now reaching retirement age with little savings as we have seen and are now going to shift a larger portion of their income to health care?

In many ways the health care industry is much in line with how Wall Street banks have operated for the last forty years.  They’ll gouge and exploit the middle class until every dollar you earn is either yanked by bank bailouts, health care costs, or taxes.  Let us run the numbers on a hypothetical family in California to see how this plays out.  We’ll use a family making $61,000 a year (Census 2008 data):

Now the above is merely a hypothetical budget.  I welcome people to comment on different items one way or another.  The above is a two adult household with no children with two cars.  This is very typical for California but I’m sure for other states as well.  But as you can see from the above, given that this household is at the median there isn’t much room for large amounts of flat screen TVs, expensive nights out on the town, or leased BMWs.  Yet many across the country lived like this and clearly that was on borrowed time and was all a ruse usually magnified by credit cards.  Now as many near retirement they are realizing that the only game in town is Wall Street and that has now become a large casino.

I know many people scream personal responsibility.  I’m the first to agree.  But there is this massive amount of cognitive dissonance when people blame the middle class and working class for this mess when Wall Street who created the financial instruments of destruction, not only got away with the biggest transfer of wealth in history, they are actually getting richer because of bailouts.  This is like putting a bank robber in prison for stealing $100 to feed his family while letting that same banker go to Wall Street and rob millions of Americans for billions of dollars and not only letting him go, but putting structures in place to make him richer!  Is it any wonder why there is so much anger festering in America?

Retirement is getting harder and harder for many middle class Americans.  What use is $1,000 a month in Social Security when your out of pocket costs for medicine is going to cost you $300 to $500 per month?  How did we do it before?  Stable banking that allowed people to pay off their mortgages and allowed people to live securely in their homes once they retired even with a small Social Security check.  But now, many have tapped out their equity and mortgaged their future.  Unlike Wall Street Americans don’t have access to the Federal Reserve.  Massive part-time employment, weak worker protection, a corporatocracy raiding the workers, and a disappearing middle class.  Get ready to work longer America because Wall Street needs that money to fund their bailouts and billion dollar bonuses for wrecking the economy.

Senator Kaufman Throws Down The Gauntlet

Senator Kaufman Throws Down The Gauntlet

Posted by Karl Denninger

Is this just words?  A glimmer of light flickers on in the dark halls of 535 fools….

Mr. President, last Thursday, the bankruptcy examiner for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. released a 2,200 page report about the demise of the firm and which included riveting detail on the firm’s accounting practices. That report has put in sharp relief what many of us have expected all along: that fraud and potential criminal conduct were at the heart of the financial crisis.

Exactly.  I’ve been writing about this for three years; indeed, it was recognition of fraud in large financial firms that led me to begin writing The Market Ticker.

Lehman structured its repo agreements so that the collateral was worth 105 percent of the cash it received – hence, the name “Repo 105.” As explained by the New York Times’ DealBook, “That meant that for a few days – and by the fourth quarter of 2007 that meant end-of-quarter – Lehman could shuffle off tens of billions of dollars in assets to appear more financially healthy than it really was.”

It was a little more than that.  Lehman accounted for these transactions as a sale, when in fact they were a loan.  There’s a hell of a difference between the two – in one case you remove an asset from your balance sheet and replace it with cash (and that change is permanent) and in the other you exchange an asset for a liability, and the net impact on your balance sheet is in fact negative, not positive (since you must pay interest on a loan.)

First, we must undo the damage done by decades of deregulation. That damage includes financial institutions that are “too big to manage and too big to regulate” (as former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac has called them), a “wild west” attitude on Wall Street, and colossal failures by accountants and lawyers who misunderstand or disregard their role as gatekeepers. The rule of law depends in part on manageably-sized institutions, participants interested in following the law, and gatekeepers motivated by more than a paycheck from their clients.

Second, we must concentrate law enforcement and regulatory resources on restoring the rule of law to Wall Street. We must treat financial crimes with the same gravity as other crimes, because the price of inaction and a failure to deter future misconduct is enormous.

Third, we must help regulators and other gatekeepers not only by demanding transparency but also by providing clear, enforceable “rules of the road” wherever possible. That includes studying conduct that may not be illegal now, but that we should nonetheless consider banning or curtailing because it provides too ready a cover for financial wrongdoing.

Everything that went on leading up to the crisis, and most of what went on in “managing” it, was unlawful under already-established black-letter laws.  Some examples should make this clear:

  • AIG sold credit-default swaps (a form of insurance, even though we don’t call it that) with no capital behind them – that is, no ability to pay.  Entering into a contract with full knowledge that you have no ability to perform is a fraudulent act – you are representing to someone that you have capacity to pay under the loss scenario, when you do not.

  • Purchasing “protection” of this sort at below the market rate of risk as determined by the spread is an uneconomic act.  That is, the essential purpose of such a purchase is not to buy protection against the adverse event, but rather to intentionally misrepresent to regulators that your assets are “covered” and thus of better quality than they are, for the explicit purpose of not having to hold reserves against them.  I argue that this is an act of fraud.  The essential point is that nobody works for free – it is therefore impossible to buy a Bond that has a risk spread over Treasuries (of equivalent duration) of 3% plus a credit-default swap to cover it for less than the same spread.  A seller of protection who does not charge at least the risk-adjusted spread will not have sufficient capital to pay, and a seller who does charge at least the risk-adjusted spread (and thus can pay) leaves you with a trade, in total, that yields less than the Treasury!   If you desire a risk-free trade it makes no sense to purchase the more-risky bond and credit-default swap, as your total return will be lower than just buying the Treasuries!

  • Mortgage origination and rating was rife with fraud up and down the line.  The breaches of representations and warranties are not accidents or oversights – they are frauds.  The most-carefully-negotiated set of terms in any offering document (for anything) is always the reps and warranties; as a seller of a business in the past I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is the case, because it is the section by which you can be hung if you make false statements.  The Securitizers represented to the buyers of these mortgage-backed securities that the credit quality was of a certain caliber in the loans that were made, when in fact post 2004 it was known that the majority of “ALT-A” loans contained some element of misrepresentation.
  • Carrying second lien loans on the books of a bank that are behind a 60+ delinquent first that is underwater at any material value is, in my opinion, a fraudulent act.  By black-letter law these second-position liens are entitled to exactly nothing until the first mortgage is fully paid.  In the case where such a loan is underwater and not performing they have no economic value whatsoever.  Current statistics are that virtually all 60+ delinquent mortgages will ultimately foreclose or sell short.  80% of the dollar value of HELOCs are in the four bubble states (Nevada, Arizona, California and Florida) and the majority of these lines are behind an underwater first.  ALL of the big banks are currently holding a massive number of these loans (tens of billions individually and hundreds of billions in aggregate) on their balance sheets at or near par value, that is, 100 cents on the dollar.  I can come up with no reasonable argument for these claimed valuations, and yet they are allowed to persist.  Packages of these loans currently trade on the second market for literal pennies on the dollar.

Why is this allowed to continue?  I have, for the last three years, asked repeatedly “Where are the cops?”

I have also asked a more-serious question, and one with unpleasant implications for our society as a whole: Is the government a felon itself?

I believe these questions are fair.  You speak in your letter of FERA, The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act.  Well, if we’re supposed to be enforcing the law against fraud, where are the cops sir?  All I’ve seen FERA do thus far is fatten the officers at the local donut shop.

As I said more than a year ago: “At the end of the day, this is a test of whether we have one justice system in this country or two. If we don’t treat a Wall Street firm that defrauded investors of millions of dollars the same way we treat someone who stole 500 dollars from a cash register, then how can we expect our citizens to have faith in the rule of law? For our economy to work for all Americans, investors must have confidence in the honest and open functioning of our financial markets. Our markets can only flourish when Americans again trust that they are fair, transparent, and accountable to the laws.”

The American people deserve no less.

We may deserve no less, but so far we the people have received zilch, all in the name of “not disturbing the so-called recovery.”

But in point of fact we’ve not only refused to prosecute, we’ve allowed these financial institutions to try to cover the holes blown in their own balance sheets as a consequence of this fraudulent activity with fees and interest charges assessed on the people!

This is akin to not only looking the other way when the robbers show up and commit their heist, but then in addition assessing the victims a tax to pay for the robber’s getaway car!

60 Minutes Presents: Inside the Collapse

Inside The Collapse Part 1


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Inside the Collapse Part 2


Watch CBS News Videos Online

The Video That Will Put Geithner Behind Bars

The NY Fed, and likely Geithner himself, undermined, perhaps even violated, laws designed to protect investors and markets.
 

Photo Credit: White House
 
 You gotta see this! If this doesn’t convince you that Timothy Geithner knew about the securities shenanigans that were going on at Lehman, than I don’t know what will.

Keep in mind, that Geithner ran Lehman through 3 “stress tests” prior to bankruptcy; all of which Lehman failed, and yet, nothing was done. Anton R. Valukas–the examiner who wrote the 2,200 page investigative-report which was released on Thursday– has provided plenty of information detailing Lehman’s “materially misleading” accounting and “actionable balance sheet manipulation.”

In other words, they cooked the books.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Timmy Must Be Fired, Or Obama Must Be Impeached

Timmy Must Be Fired, Or Obama Must Be Impeached

Posted by Karl Denninger

The Jenner and Block report on Lehman just keeps on giving.

Today I am going to focus on FRBNY’s culpability in the apparent Lehman fraud – that is, the role that FRBNY (and thus Tim Geithner) played in keeping an insolvent institution afloat through the use of fraudulent artifices.

We must look first to what the PDCF, or “primary dealer credit facility” was created to be.  The report does this for us:

Under the PDCF, the FRBNY would make collateralized loans to broker?dealers, such as LBI, and in effect, act as a repo counterparty. Unlike a typical counterparty, though, with the creation of the PDCF, the FRBNY was generally understood by market participants to be the “lender of last resort to the broker?dealers.”5332 Reflecting the fact that broker?dealer liquidity had become increasingly dependent on overnight repos to obtain short?term secured financing,5333 the PDCF was structured as an overnight facility.

Pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act’s requirement that a Federal Reserve Bank lend only on a secured basis, and according to the convention in repo lending, the FRBNY advanced funds against a schedule of collateral. Collateral accepted by the PDCF initially consisted of: Treasuries, government agency securities, mortgage?backed securities issued or guaranteed by government agencies, and investment grade corporate, municipal, mortgage? and asset?backed securities priced by clearing banks.5334

 The FRBNY set the lending rate for PDCF advances equal to the rate charged by the Federal Reserve’s discount window, available to depository institutions.5335 In fact, the PDCF was frequently analogized to the traditional discount window, or viewed as expanding the discount window to securities broker-dealers.

In short, the PDCF was essentially an extension of the overnight repo market set up to deal with a very-specific circumstance – Bear Stearn’s near collapse, despite having valid and good, market-recognized marginable collateral that could be posted for overnight repos.

The problem is, as I noted at the time, that broker/dealers used the PDCF not as it was intended and announced but rather as a scheme to post illiquid or even trash collateral that nobody else would take in exchange for liquidity – that is, cash.

Indeed, at the time I said:

These banks could take dogsqueeze, put it in a box and slap a $1 million price tag on it, and given the utter lack of prosecutorial supervision of the law – existing law – they’d get away with it literally forever.

They could then make loans against this “value” and yet what they actually hold is worth zero.

When they ran low on cash they’d then tender that dogcrap to The Fed for a TAF or PDCF loan, and that’s ok too – our Congress simply doesn’t give a damn as the hundred million dollars in bribes, er, “campaign contributions”, insure that blatant violations of The Federal Reserve Act are not only tolerated but cheered whenever Wall Street needs more “slop” for its pigtrough – at your expense.

This was, at the time, an educated guess.  Now we know it was much more – it was fact:

Lehman did indeed create securitizations for the PDCF with a view toward treating the new facility as a “warehouse” for its illiquid leveraged loans. In March 2008, Lehman packaged 66 corporate loans to create the “Freedom CLO.”5347 The transaction consisted of two tranches: a $2.26 billion senior note, priced at par, rated single A, and designed to be PDCF eligible, and an unrated $570 million equity tranche.5348 The loans that Freedom “repackaged” included high?yield leveraged loans,5349 which Lehman had difficulty moving off its books,5350 and included unsecured loans to Countrywide Financial Corp.5351

Lehman did not intend to market its Freedom CLO, or other similar securitizations, to investors. Rather, Lehman created the CLOs exclusively to pledge to the PDCF.5352 An internal presentation documenting the securitization process for Freedom and similar CLOs named “Spruce” and “Thalia,” noted that the “[r]epackage[d] portfolio of HY [high yield leveraged loans]” constituting the securitizations, “are not meant to be marketed.”5353 Handwriting from an unknown source underlines this sentence and notes at the margin: “No intention to market.”

 

It gets better.  Not only was Lehman aware that it was gaming the system it gamed public disclosure and FRBNY was aware what was going on:

Given that the press has not focused (yet) on the Fed window in relation to the [Freedom] CLO, I’d suggest deleting the reference in the summary below. Press will be in attendance at the shareholder meeting and my concern is that volunteering this information would result in a story.

 

So we have the company intentionally avoiding public disclosure of “a material event.”  Securities laws are supposed to prevent this sort of thing – if they’re enforced.

Did FRBNY know of this?  It sure looks that way:

The FRBNY was aware that Lehman viewed the PDCF not only as a liquidity backstop for financing quality assets, but also as a means to finance its illiquid assets.

 

But wait a second – that’s not what the PDCF was intended to be.  So here’s a clear statement that FRBNY knew that Lehman (and perhaps others) were in fact gaming the system and yet they did nothing about it.

Who ran FRBNY at the time?  None other than Tim Geithner.

It gets better.

Remember the “tests” of the PDCF from that time?  Those were lies too:

Lehman drew on the PDCF facility sparingly prior to its bankruptcy. Lehman accessed the PDCF seven times in the liquidity stress period that followed the Fed brokered sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan.5368 Both internally, and to third parties, Lehman characterized these draws as “tests,”5369 although witnesses from the FRBNY have stated that these were not strictly “tests,” but instances in which Lehman drew upon the facility for liquidity purposes.

And again, FRBNY and Tim Geithner allowed to be promulgated to the market false information about the character of the use of this facility.

Nor does it end there.  FRBNY and Tim Geithner appear to have countenanced and sat silent while Lehman deliberately and intentionally was counting assets that were encumbered in its liquidity numbers!  Specifically:

The FRBNY knew that Lehman included pledged assets in its liquidity pool, but as Lehman’s lender rather than its regulator, the FRBNY took no steps to compel Lehman to disclose the discrepancy between Lehman’s reported liquidity pool figure and the actual, smaller number.

 

FRBNY, however, is both a regulator and a lender.  In addition the distinction may be immaterial; if you are a party to a violation of the law and do nothing about it, you can be held accountable as an accessory before or after the fact.  In this case these false statements by Lehman appear to be nothing more than a garden-variety fraud, and it certainly appears that Tim Geithner and FRBNY were both fully-aware of what was going on and intentionally said nothing.

The report makes clear that the market was misled, and relied on the misleading statements.  Specifically:

On the basis of Lehman’s reported liquidity pool, specifically its reported size and composition of easy?to?monetize assets, market participants formed positive opinions of Lehman’s liquidity profile. Certain influential participants, and rating agencies in particular, cited Lehman’s liquidity pool as the basis for concluding that Lehman’s liquidity position was sound.

“The basis for Moody’s assessment of Lehman’s liquidity,” the report continues, “is the strength of their overall funding framework, which includes an ample liquidity cushion of high-quality unencumbered assets.”

While private parties may have no obligation to “rat out” misperceptions of the market, it is my position that a government agency or actor, irrespective of what other hats they wear, DOES have such an affirmative obligation.

The SEC has concluded:

Post earnings announcement on September 9[, 2008], Holdings’ liquidity decreased . . . from $41 billion to $25 billion – $16 billion of which was required by clearing banks at the start of the day and approximately $7 billion of which was in liquid securities that became near impossible to monetize immediately in this extremely stressed market environment -primarily because of a loss of repo capacity.

As a result, . . . ”free cash” available intra day was less than $2 billion.

With LBIE facing a projected cash shortage of $4.5 billion on September 15, Lehman had no choice but to place LBIE into administration because of potential director liability. This resulted in a cross?default of and triggered the filing [of LBHI] on September 15.

In other words, essentially the entire liquidity pool was tied up in security agreements with various firms, and this was the proximate cause of the bankruptcy filing.

The paper makes a clear case that FRBNY was aware of both the encumbrance and Lehman’s lack of disclosure of this fact to the investment community and did nothing about it.

Here is the bottom line folks: Tim Geithner, then-head of FRBNY, is responsible as the chief executive for everything that went on there.  Whether he had personal knowledge or not is immaterial, although it is extremely difficult to believe that he would not know about the most-important issue facing the markets in the summer and early fall of 2008.

The record is clear, however, that while the NY Fed knew that (1) Lehman was gaming the PDCF with assets that other banks refused to repo against (in fact Citi called one of them “garbage”) and (2) it was encumbering its so-called “liquidity pool” with security agreements and as a consequence there was in fact no liquidity available FRBNY did nothing to alert the SEC or investors of this fact.

This paper appears to set forth several prima-facie cases of violations of Securities Laws, both on a civil and criminal level.

The further question, however, is whether culpability extends to both FRBNY and the banks with which Lehman was doing business with.  The paper also makes a prima-facie case that both FRBNY and these other banks were fully-aware of what Lehman was up to and intentionally looked the other way, deeming it “not their problem.”

This, I believe, is false. 

I cannot have constructive or actual knowledge that you have the intention of robbing a bank (breaking the law) and yet drive you to the bank.  If I continue with assisting you in the furtherance of your scheme once I become aware of it I am subject to being charged as an accessory or even as a primary criminal actor in the case.

How is this different?

Further, how is it that we can have a Treasury Secretary who, it appears, had either full or constructive knowledge of the gaming that Lehman was undertaking and yet did nothing about it, leading directly and proximately to the market meltdown in 2008.

Literal trillions of dollars were lost due to this malfeasance and misfeasance, along with millions of jobs.  Yet one of the “watchdog” agencies involved in banking clearing and regulation knew about it, did nothing, and the head of that organization now runs Treasury.

It has been my contention that Geithner was largely responsible for willful blindness in the lead-up to this mess since it began.  We now have a “smoking gun” making a clear and nearly-impossible to refute case.

I call upon prosecutors both at a State and Federal level to look into this for potential prosecution under both civil and criminal Racketeering statutes, including their counterparty banks and FRBNY.

Tim Geithner must be fired by The President.  If he refuses, then following the election in November, when I fully expect that Republicans will re-take both the House and Senate, impeachment proceedings must be brought against President Obama for his willful and intentional refusal to remove the person who this paper makes clear could have put a stop to the collapse for nearly six months and yet failed to do so.

Iceland, the Mouse that Roared

Iceland, the Mouse that Roared

Szandor Blestman

I thought I heard something the other night. It was a distant sound, a low rumbling, a roar from some far off beast that had finally pronounced its presence. It woke me for a second, but it was so distant I felt no threat and simply rolled over and went back to sleep. The next morning I learned that Iceland was taking a stand. It was refusing to pay its British and Dutch debts. It is claiming the debts are a result of fraud, and it’s right. They have made the offer to pay some years from now, if they can afford it at that time, and only as a percentage of their GDP. This offer has been, of course, declined by Iceland’s creditor banks as they demand payment in the form of real assets.

The Icelanders have grown a pair, so to speak. They are doing something I wish Americans would have done, or will do in the future. They are standing up to the privately owned banks that seem to think they are above the law, that they can change the rules at their whim, and that they alone know what’s best for the world, which of course happens to empower them and help their profits. I may not agree with all the politics of Iceland. It might not be the bastion of freedom one looking to get away from intrusive government might run to, but I do admire their stance against the banksters.

Let’s examine the situation a little closer. The Icelanders claim that private banks owe the money to other private banks, not taxpayers. The people who own the private banks should be responsible for paying back the creditor banks, not the people of Iceland. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. Furthermore, I would take it a step further and make the assertion that any government official voting for any public borrowing that requires payment of public funds for interest be held responsible, or their family be held responsible, should the loans go into default. In other words, these public officials should not be allowed to maintain their fortunes while the common folk are expected to pay for the mistakes they made. Perhaps that would help stop the corruption.

It seems that Iceland was fooled into the same ponzi scheme the rest of the world finds itself in. This all revolves around the fact that money in and of itself has no intrinsic value. It is just paper, for the most part, and in the modern world it is just data floating around in cyberspace. Even metal coins are made from cheap and common metals anymore. The fiat system devised by the central banks are designed to collapse at some point, and it’s designed to collapse in such a way that the very few, very rich, very powerful end up with all the marbles. It’s not enough to them, it seems, to be at the top of the heap, they have to be so high up and keep the common folk down so low as to be untouchable.

Those that own the banks now hope that they can swoop in and buy up the nation’s infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, or in this case aurar on the krona. This is how they operate. They print money based on nothing but debt at negligible cost to themselves, then charge interest on that debt, interest that is never created by the way, and then when the debt can’t be repaid they end up acquiring all the real wealth that’s been created. It’s a brilliant scheme in its simplicity. They end up with all the real wealth and they risk nothing of any real value. I could be wrong, but I think it’s safe to say that the Icelanders figured this out when their creditor banks started demanding things like their geothermal power stations and other such publicly owned infrastructure as payment for their defaulted loans. They cried “foul!” – as well they should having played by the rules all this time – and charged that they had been defrauded. They may well have shocked the establishment with their refusal to pay the extortion.

One may well ask, “Is this the fate that awaits all nations?” How many nations in the world today are in the same boat as Iceland? How many are having problems just servicing the interest on their debt? I dare say it would be easier to count the nations that weren’t experiencing debt trouble. And one could rightly ask where all the money has gone. Certainly the debt hasn’t been put back into the economy to create more wealth. Indeed, I would venture a guess that there’s trillions of dollars, euros, yens, pounds, francs, marks, you name it, stashed away in vaults somewhere just waiting for the day when they can be used again, money that should no longer exist that somehow found its way into secret vaults that also shouldn’t exist.

It is interesting to note that the biggest banks, the ones that managed to get bailed out by US tax dollars rather than made to liquidate, are intimately connected to the same international bankers who own the central banks across the globe. Indeed, Goldman Sachs seems to have become a “bank of the world,” so to speak, as it has its fingers in a little bit of everyone’s pies these days. It is also interesting to note that their largest competitors were allowed to fail, effectively setting them up with monopoly privileges. That’s how the power banking elite want it, all the money in their hands and all the corporations under their thumb as they monopolize the issuance of currency and credit. Everyone will have to do as they say or they will quickly become bankrupt and destitute. Such is the power of monopoly.

One may well wonder what happens next. The British and Dutch have threatened economic sanctions should the Icelanders fail to fall in line, but is this how we want to treat our brethren? Is this how we want to treat our allies that stood by us in the darkest of times? Do we now just shun people we consider friends simply because they stand up for what they believe is right? Do we go so far as to commit an act of war on such a democratic nation because they recognize a fraud when they see one? This situation should get everyone thinking. The corruption now exposed is so grievous and obvious that we should all realize the time has come to obliterate the current system and deny any power to those who brought this situation to bear.

It is once again time to set up a system of money based on labor instead of debt. We should have a system where free people are able to own property outright, not have to borrow to afford it and then worry that an uncaring bank may come and claim it should one find one´s self in financial trouble. Similarly, it is very disturbing that government can claim private property via eminent domain and non payment of property taxes as if they feel they already own the land you pay for. These wrongs have needed correction for a long time now and hopefully the actions of the Icelanders will help start the ball rolling.

While the Greeks are rioting because they worry their entitlements will be taken away, the Icelanders have been able to take a more direct roll in the political process. The Greeks may well feel they have been left out of the political process, much like many Americans feel at this point in time as we watch the congress blatantly ignore the wishes of the common folk time and again. The bailouts, the wars, the passing of laws violating our rights and the health care bills are all examples of the minority political class ignoring the wishes of the majority to the detriment of society. The Icelanders may have to pay a price for their bravery, but they are finding their way back to freedom and self reliance.

We have been dependent on these banks for far too long and they have taken advantage of it. They have threatened our lawmakers with martial law and economic destruction. They have refused to honor the will of the people and answer questions involving how they´ve spent our money. As I write this, a very few senators, Bob Corker (R-TN), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Judd Gregg (R-NH), are working to strip the Audit the Fed amendment from the Financial Reform Bill and give the Federal Reserve even more power. This will assure they will never be held accountable for the wrongs they have done. These senators need to be shown in no uncertain terms that we the people have had enough and will not obey their dictates and whims any longer.

We as a society need to start producing again. We need to start competing with others who wish to produce. This is how wealth is created. The more wealth we create, the more prosperous we all become. For a few decades now, we have tried to maintain our lifestyles with a service economy. It didn´t work. Now the economy is collapsing worldwide. Now the banks are hoarding that which they created and are trying to claim the real wealth that should be owned by private sovereigns. We need to ask ourselves, can we be proactive and stop this before we wake up and find ourselves in the same boat as Iceland? If not, will we simply say no and refuse to pay as they did, or will we allow our society to break down and resort to violence as the Greeks? Don´t let a few politicians on the bankster´s payroll dictate what needs to be done. Demand action now. Roar louder than the Icelanders. Hopefully, we will find justice later. Hopefully, we can avoid the fate of nations that remain on the central banker´s preferred course.

Szandor Blestman was born the 6th of 8 children to a high school English teacher and a certified financial planner. He attended the University of Illinois and earned a Bachelor’s degree in Rhetoric in 1984 with minors in Math and Geology. He took some time off school to raise a family. He has five wonderful children, three of which have grown to adulthood. He achieved a Master’s of Science in IT from the University of Maryland University College in Dec. 2004. Szandor has been laid off from work since January and is looking for employment. If you know of or have any job openings, particularly in writing, editing, acting or media production, please contact him at sblestman@yahoo.com. Also contact him if you are a publisher and wish to offer him a contract for the work he has already done. He will relocate for the right opportunity. Szandor loves receiving email and feedback.

FedUpUSA Twitter

FedUpUSA Twitter


FedUpUSA Facebook
FedUpUSA Forum

Join the
FedUpUSA Forum

graciously hosted by:

The Market Ticker Forums
FedUpUSA Gear

Get Your Official FedUpUSA Gear Today!

FedUpUSA Gear