You know things are not normal when a 4%-5% movement in equity markets looks routine.
I’ve been a bit surprised that it has taken investors this long to get the memo that the prospects for the economy (both domestically and internationally) are lousy. The stunning US GDP revisions of last month should have been a wake-up call, but they seemed to be swamped by the deficit ceiling/S&P downgrade theatrics.
Read more...Before readers get worried by virtue of the headline that the Supreme Court will use its magic legal wand to make the dubious MERS mortgage registry system viable, consider the following:
Read more...Louise Story at the New York Times reports that the SEC is looking into whether it has grounds to file suit against the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s for publishing higher ratings on bonds than the analysts had recommended. The article reports that the agency has found instances where executives overrode analyst judgement to award higher ratings on mortgage bonds that were later downgraded and produced investor losses. The piece indicates that the SEC has found instances of this sort of misconduct; the question seems to be whether it took place often enough to make a case.
From the Obama administration’s standpoint, it must seems rather unfortunate that the SEC has decided to go after S&P just as Matt Taibbi has called attention to the fact that the agency has organized its affairs so as to help it avoid seeing all but the most egregious misconduct. Readers will point out that any case would be politically motivated, but those who live by the sword should be prepared to die by the sword.
Read more...Matt Taibbi has published yet another serious expose, and this one is appalling in that it shows how long standing and deeply institutionalized the “nothing to see here” practices are engrained at the SEC.
This is the guts of the article:
Read more...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.
By Philip Pilkington, a journalist and writer living in Dublin, Ireland
The engine that drives enterprise is not thrift, but profit – John Maynard Keynes
Profits are without doubt the key driving force in a capitalist economy. No respectable entrepreneur would try to sell goods or services were they not to make some sort of profit out of it. And yet profits are spoken of surprisingly little in mainstream neoclassical economics. For the neoclassicals there is, in fact, a deafening silence surrounding the role that profits play in the functioning of our economies; economies that are, of course, founded on the profit motive.
For example, if we turn to a fairly standard mainstream textbook – in this case Samuelson and Nordhaus’ ‘Economics: Fifteenth Edition’ – we find just how little neoclassical economics concerns itself with profits (some will say that Samuelson is a Keynesian, indeed he would probably have said so himself, but Samuelson is not really a Keynesian, his ‘neoclassical synthesis’ was just a grafting of a vulgarised Keynes onto the neoclassical edifice). This 800-odd page book devotes all of three pages to the topic. And even in this short space the authors are vague and fuzzy. We are told that profits come from ‘a hodgepodge of different elements’; that they are earned as a ‘reward for bearing risk’ and that occasionally they take the shape of ‘monopoly returns’. At no point do the authors even dare to suggest where profits come from.
This must appear to anyone with even a cursory interest in how our economies work as a rather unusual evasion. And it should. Usually when people are evasive on such important issues it is because – whether they know it or not – they are hiding something. In this case the authors are – again, whether they know it or not – hiding something extremely important; namely: the origin, source and function of profits in a capitalist economy.
Read more...By Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. He is the former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson. You can reach him at stoller (at) gmail.com or follow him on Twitter at @matthewstoller
everyone I know is working on some type of RMBS litigation. investors suing issuers, issuers suing originators, insurers suing issuers. wild – A tweet from a NYC corporate lawyer, 8/17/2011
Doesn’t it seems like we’ve been on the verge of a 50 state Attorney General settlement with the banks over robo-signing and mortgage securitization liability for nine months? It does, doesn’t it? Why is that? Maybe it’s because… that’s what journalists keep writing.
Read more...The US press appears to have the attention span of a gnat. The S&P downgrade, Euromarket driven stock gyrations, and the Republican presidential race jockeying have displaced older stories. Yet the News International phone hacking scandal is blowing up to Watergate-level proportions in the UK, with fresh evidence showing that Rupert and James Murdoch (at best) misled Parliament in their testimony last month. And since phone hacking appears to be widespread, not just at the now defunct News of the World, but potentially other News International entities in the UK, it isn’t hard to imagine that US news outlets also engaged in questionable and possibly impermissible conduct.
Yet the contrast between the US and UK coverage is marked, and it goes beyond the obvious explanation that l’affaire Murdoch is chock full of major domestic power players. The difference in presentation is marked. The stories in the Guardian, which did the real spadework, and the Independent (to pick two examples) are incisive, direct, and suitably scandalized. The latest stories in the New York Times and Bloomberg (to pick two counter-examples) have headlines almost designed to have the reader ignore the articles.
Read more...I haven’t done this show before and quite enjoyed the chat, although I did muff words in a couple of places. I’m finding that I seemed to be banned from US TV channels, but the flip side is this was a much more substantive conversation than you’d find on the usual suspects here.
Hope you enjoy the segment.
Read more...As much as the dot com era conditioned US individual investors to focus on stock market movements, credit markets are where the real action lies. Deterioration in the bond markets almost without exception precedes stock market declines (although debt instruments can also send out false positives). In the stone ages of my youth, the rule of thumb was a four-month lag. In 2007, that guide was not at all bad. The bond market turn began in June 2007 (yours truly took note of it then, see here for the critical development, but was not convinced it was the Big One until corroborating data came in in July). The stock market obligingly peaked in October 2007.
Now given the extraordinary degree of government interventions, turns are not as obvious, market upheavals have repeatedly been beaten back, and relationships between stock and bond market price movements are likely to be less reliable than in the past. But one thing that is a clear danger signal is liquidity leaving the banking system. It’s like the preternatural calm when the water leaves the beach, revealing much more shore than usual, before the tsunami rolls in.
Read more...Bank of America’s actions continue to betray its words. CEO Brian Moynihan bravely maintained in an investor conference call last week that the beleaguered bank would be around for the next 230 years and did not need more new capital. He nixed selling equity at its current price levels, because it would be highly dilutive.
Yet we and others have raised the issue that the bank is in a corner in dealing with its not so hot balance sheet.
Read more...By Satyajit Das, the author of Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk (published in August/ September 2011)
In the Long Term We’re All Dead
The European Union’s attempts to resolve the continent’s sovereign debt problems do not deal with issues of growth, intra-European financial imbalances and competitiveness. The only “initiative” was the vague plan for a massive public investment program, although no details of how it is to be financed were provided.
The call for greater public investment was accompanied by a familiar but contradictory insistence that all Euro-zone states adhere to agreed fiscal targets. Euro-zone countries except Greece, Ireland and Portugal must bring their budget deficit down to less than 3% of GDP by 2013. The need for many European countries to improve public finances is clear. But how greater belt-tightening and austerity would restore growth is not.
Read more...Cross-posted from Credit Writedowns Paul Krugman has another piece up on MMT. I like this piece a lot more than the last one he wrote. I suggest you read it. Here’s the one passage I do find troubling, however: Let’s have a more or less concrete example. Suppose that at some future date — a […]
Read more...
