All About 'The Blob'

Read it and weep.

Video: Goodbye, Geithner!

Should Obama be re-elected call me sceptical that we'll get someone better than Turbo Tax Timmy, but in the meantime lets all shout a collective Hallelujah!

Video of Geithner breaking the news that he won't be around next term after the jump:

Video: Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost - How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It

Note to video departments everywhere that the below video is a fantastic way to show a presenter and his/her slides.

h/t Barry

If Not Obama, Who Does Secretary Geithner Take Orders From?

Here's the story about how Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, perhaps emboldened by his ability to get away with tax evasion, decided in March 2009 to ignore President Obama's directive to dissolve Citibank.

As MIT Professor Simon Johnson and others have pointed out, the most recent financial crisis marked the third time in the last three decades that Citibank has needed a taxpayer financed bailout. In other words, once every 10 years on average Citibank goes bust.

Obama, perhaps aware of this fact, maybe thought it was time to put an end to the joke that Citibank and its lackluster management can stand on its own two feet without government backing. Why didn't Geithner agree with his boss?

Friends of Bob: Summers, Orszag and Geithner

Yves Smith has a theory. Another possibility is that dismantling Citibank would have put an end to the #1 preferred post-government destination for officials looking to cash-in like Robert Rubin, who pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation as Chairman of Citibank following his position as Treasury Secretary, and Peter Orszag, who left the Obama administration for a similar lucrative position with the megabank.

And what consequences has Geithner suffered for his supposed insubordination? Apparently none based on the fact that Obama purportedly had to beg him to stay on through the 2012 election.

Video: Ethics in Economics

More on this topic here and here.

The SEC: Just When You Think You've Run Out of Outrage...

SEC Commissioner Mary Schapiro

Things were starting to look up for the beleaguered-since-Madoff  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with its spate of successful prosecutions of high-profile insider trading criminals. But for the U.S. stock market cop it continues to be a case of one step forward, four steps back.

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi delivers the latest bombshell:

For the past two decades, according to a whistle-blower at the SEC who recently came forward to Congress, the agency has been systematically destroying records of its preliminary investigations once they are closed. By whitewashing the files of some of the nation’s worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG. With a few strokes of the keyboard, the evidence gathered during thousands of investigations – “18,000 … including Madoff,” as one high-ranking SEC official put it during a panicked meeting about the destruction – has apparently disappeared forever into the wormhole of history. 

It goes without saying that no ordinary law-enforcement agency would willingly destroy its own evidence. In fact, when it comes to garden-variety crooks, more and more police agencies are catching criminals with the aid of large and well-maintained databases.

Much has been made in recent months of the government's glaring failure to police Wall Street; to date, federal and state prosecutors have yet to put a single senior Wall Street executive behind bars for any of the many well-documented crimes related to the financial crisis. Indeed, Flynn's accusations dovetail with a recent series of damaging critiques of the SEC made by reporters, watchdog groups and members of Congress, all of which seem to indicate that top federal regulators spend more time lunching, schmoozing and job-interviewing with Wall Street crooks than they do catching them. As one former SEC staffer describes it, the agency is now filled with so many Wall Street hotshots from oft-investigated banks that it has been "infected with the Goldman mindset from within."

Anyone seen the latest Intrade odds on SEC head Mary Schapiro keeping her job?

Full Taibbi article here. 

Video: Our Political and Economic Problems Are Fundamentally a Crisis in Virtue

Marcus Aurelius

George Friedman of STRATFOR gets to the heart of the current political and economic malaise in a brief and succinct video interview here.

He's spot on about the point that all the new regulation in the form of Dodd-Frank, Basel III, etc. do zero good without enforcement.

And why aren't both existing and new regulations being enforced? In Dr. Friedman's view, it comes down to a lack of virtue among our current elite.

The good news is that this is not an insolvable problem for two reasons: First, virtue, in my opinion, is unlike height, raw intelligence, or good looks, in the sense that it is not something that one is by-and-large born with. Virtue is both learned and cultivated over time.

But how much attention do we currently place on the development of virtue? The classics in the western world on this topic include the works by Marcus Aurelius, Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, among others. To perhaps unfairly single out two disciplines, what room is made for those works in our current economics and business curriculum? From my personal observations, zip.

The idea of a renaissance education has been steadily pushed aside through the years in favor of the poly-technical practicalness of the 1-minute manager MBA and quant-PhDs. Today's economic and political conundrum is arguably a by-product of this de-prioritization of the study and development of virtue.

The second reason I am optimistic we can solve this problem is that when our leaders first fail society in such an epic fashion, and then next fail a second time by not fixing the root-cause of the problem, then those of us in representative democracies often make change.

Here's to hoping we get the change right this time.

Playing it Safe, Losing it All

Two facts worth highlighting from Drew Westen's controversial NY Times piece titled 'What Happened to Obama':

1. Obama published nothing (except his autobiography) during his twelve years as a faculty member at the University of Chicago
2. Before joining the Senate he voted 'present' (instead of 'yea' or 'nay') 130 times

What is one to make of this?

I won't speculate on Obama's not publishing anything in an academic journal, but one thing presidential candidates are often attacked on is their voting record. During a heated political campaign a candidate's previous legislative votes are scrutinized and picked over for any possible controversy (see John Kerry). As an astute observer of political history and campaigns, Barrack Obama would be well aware of this.

Was his voting 'present' strategy all about playing it safe and as Westen puts it "dodging difficult issues"? Or is there another explanation all together?

From Westen:

Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in “Dreams From My Father” appended a chapter at the end that wasn’t there — the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.

One of the hallmark qualities of Barrack Hussein Obama's rise to the presidency has been his exceptional risk aversion. That strategy worked well in the campaign but is not serving President Obama or the country well at a time when bold, visionary political leadership is needed.

Like many, I've been scratching my head trying to put my finger on what it is about Obama that just doesn't seem right. And then I remembered a comment made by fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld when he was asked to describe himself: "I don't want to be real in other people's minds. I want to be an apparition."

I completely agree with Westen that right now the U.S. desperately needs the gregarious optimism and energy of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Teddy Roosevelt type personality in the White House, and not the Lagerfeld-esque 'complete improvisation' we seem to have at present.

I will never wholly forgive and forget the missed opportunity in 2009 to conduct a perhaps once-in-a-century overhaul of the global financial system, along with Obama's decision to reappoint many of the same people who led us into the crisis - Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Greenspan protege Ben Bernanke.

With the way things are going at Bank of America and the Eurozone we may soon get a second bite at the financial system overhaul apple. Fighting to keep Timothy Geithner on as Secretary of the Treasury doesn't exactly instil in one a sense of optimism, but there is still time for President Obama to do what is necessary to restore American optimism.

Bailing Out Too Big to Fail: Here We Go Again

The sorry state of Bank of America's financial position, which is trading at less than half its book value, may necessitate yet another bailout.

From Bloomberg's Jonathan Weil:

Ask anyone what the most immediate threats to the global financial system are, and the obvious answers would be the European sovereign-debt crisis and the off chance that the U.S. won’t raise its debt ceiling in time to avoid a default. Here’s one to add to the list: the frightening plunge in Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s stock price. 

At $9.85 a share, down 26 percent this year, Bank of America finished yesterday with a market capitalization of $99.8 billion. That’s an astonishingly low 49 percent of the company’s $205.6 billion book value, or common shareholder equity, as of June 30. As far as the market is concerned, more than half of the company’s book value is bogus, due to overstated assets, understated liabilities, or some combination of the two.

But wasn't Dodd-Frank supposed to prevent us from having to bail out the megabanks again?

Until we embrace comprehensive financial reform, such as well thought through proposals like 'Limited Purpose Banking' outlined by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, we will continue to be faced with the prospect of bailing-out reckless and/or incompetent Too Big to Fail megabanks.

Outrage of the Week: FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker Cashes-In

Shameful

Federal Communications commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who just four months ago voted in favor of the hugely controversial merger between Comcast and NBC, announced this week that she planned to join the lobbying office of Comcast.

From the Washington Post:

Baker stood out among the FCC’s five commissioners for criticizing the merger review process for taking too long. She said the agency attached too many conditions to the deal. Among them, she opposed holding Comcast accountable to Internet access rules and the sharing of content with new online distributors such as Netflix and YouTube. She said those Internet television platforms were too new and that the market for online video was competitive and still forming. 

The deal was approved in January by the FCC and Justice Department, forming a media behemoth that controls a bevy of television and movie assets along with the largest number of U.S. home Internet and cable subscriptions.

Also of note, Meredith Attwell Baker is a Republican who was appointed to the F.C.C. by President Obama two years ago. On the endemic problem of regulatory capture, here's The Future of Capitalism:

In a better world, this would be a hot political issue for a politician to seize on. But because it's such a bipartisan problem — both Republicans and Democrats cash out through the revolving door — it doesn't get much attention. It's a part of why government gets bigger, though, because for the politicians and regulators the incentives are there to make more complex rules and laws that they can then earn money helping companies to either comply with or get around.

Meredith Attwell Baker is just the latest example of the pervasive 'go into government to cash-in' culture which has poisoned public service in the U.S. Baker's shameful move is nothing new, but she does earn extra outrage kudos for brazenly waiting a scant four months before making such a blatant ethical affront.

Some may wonder whether it's right to cast shame on Attwell Baker? I'm not a legal expert, but I suspect she's not violating any laws or rules. Instead one could argue that she is simply behaving in accordance with the system's incentive structure.

The big problem with taking this view is that regulatory capture is a very difficult problem to address, but one that creates huge costs. Most of the people who are best served to work in the regulatory arena naturally come, and can most easily find later employment in, the industries they regulate. Until a systemic solution is devised accountability has to be maintained at the individual level, and that means shaming the shameful.

As the regulatory revolving door leading in-and-out of industry keeps going around, and around, and around, and as fiscal deficits keep piling higher, can there be any doubt that we're simply biding our time until the next big crisis?

Graphic of the Day: The Financial Crisis of 2015

(click to enlarge)

Source: Oliver Wyman

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?

Good question!

Weekend reading from Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone here on why so few prosecutions have been brought by the Obama administration against 'main stream' Wall Street. This has left over-the-top ponzi crook Bernie Madoff as the only high-profile financial villain serving time in the pokey.

Johny Depp in Blow

Speaking of Madoff, fellow ponzi-schemer 'Sir' Allen Stanford was recently moved into Madoff's digs at Butner prison. Will the two get a chance to compare notes?

Docudrama filmmakers: there may be a fun movie here. I'm imagining a screenplay set in part at Butner, perhaps featuring Stanford and Madoff as cellmates, with flashbacks to their pre-arrest glory days ala the stylized cocaine caper, Blow.

Photo of the Day: Paul Volcker Puffing Away Circa 1980

From Floyd Norris' optimistic piece on the implementation of the Volcker Rule, which aims to ban proprietary trading at systemically important financial institutions (aka Too Big Too Fail) in today's NY Times.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker testifying
before the U.S. House Banking Committee, 1980

You might be smoking like a chimney too if you had to explain to Congress how you were going to avoid causing massive unemployment (and cost pols their re-election) while slaying double digit inflation.

Is Singapore-Hong Kong Financial Regulation Superior?

Howard Davies

Writing on the subject of banker bonuses and financial regulation, Howard Davies, the Director of the London School of Economics (LSE) and former head of Britain's financial regulatory body, sings the praises of both Hong Kong's and Singapore's higher compensation for financial regulators.

Could simply paying regulators more be the key to solving the problem of regulatory capture?

Davies also highlights the research of LSE's Ahmed Tahoun, who found unsurprising evidence that "US congressmen systematically invest more in firms that favor their own party, and that when they sell stock, firms stop contributing to their campaigns. Moreover, firms with more stock ownership by politicians tend to win more and bigger government contracts...the results...suggest a less-than-healthy relationship between lawmakers’ political and pecuniary interests."

Wall Street Collusion: Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives

Must read NY Times article on how the Too 'Bigger' to Fail megabanks control and manipulate the multi-trillion derivatives market.

An excerpt from the article:

“On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan.

The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable — and controversial — fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.

Drawn from giants like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the bankers form a powerful committee that helps oversee trading in derivatives, instruments which, like insurance, are used to hedge risk. In theory, this group exists to safeguard the integrity of the multitrillion-dollar market. In practice, it also defends the dominance of the big banks.

The banks in this group, which is affiliated with a new derivatives clearinghouse, have fought to block other banks from entering the market, and they are also trying to thwart efforts to make full information on prices and fees freely available.”

and the money graphic:

Video: The Banker

This is a bit over the top, but with close to 50,000 page views provides yet another example of creative YouTube PR tactics in the battle over financial regulatory reform.

In terms of its effectiveness, I'd rate it somewhere between the 3 million+ views cartoon and the Fed's less compelling comic book.

Too Big to Save: Is Ireland the 'Lehman' of Europe's Sovereign Debt Crisis?

One of the most articulate and knowledgeable authorities on the financial system and crisis is MIT Professor and former IMF Chief Economist, Simon Johnson.

In two must watch videos Professor Johnson clearly explains why another financial crisis is inevitable unless specific steps are taken to prevent one.

Charles Ferguson on "Obama's Depressingly Rational Decision to Give In to Wall Street"

Academy Award nominated film director Charles Ferguson, who's documentary Inside Job about the financial crisis is currently playing in theaters, has penned an article on President Obama and Wall Street.

When will we stop indulging the fantasy that 'Too Big to Fail' banks are private enterprises?

And if you haven't already seen Ferguson's interview of former Fed Governor Fred Mishkin on his infamous "Financial Stability in Iceland" report, you can check it out here.