Category Archives: Politics

Euro Whacked by Reports that Greece May Leave the Eurozone?

The Euro has fallen from roughly 1.49 to the dollar to 1.43 in a mere two days, which is a huge move. Many pundits have argued that the ECB’s newly accommodative stance is the trigger, but there may be additional forces at work. Most experts have deemed the idea that any eurozone member would exit the currency to be simply inconceivable, that it would be too costly and disruptive. But with the hair shirt that Greece is being asked to wear, all bets may be off.

As of this juncture, this reports in Der Spiegel does not appear to have gotten traction among the Usual Suspects in the MSM. Headline: “Greece Considers Exit from Euro Zone” (hat tip readers John M and Illya F).

GAO Report Confirms Our Criticism of “Foreclosure Task Force” Review

We’ve taken a dim view of the “worse than stress tests” review by Federal regulators of foreclosure practices late last fall. This was an obvious effort to alleviate concerns in the wake of the robosigning scandal. When the bank-friendly OCC released the results of the review, the guts of which was a look at 2800 seriously delinquent loans from all the major servicers, it confirmed our reservations:

Republicans to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Drop Dead

In a new effort to guarantee the continued right of banks to loot and pillage, 44 Republican senators have written to Obama saying that they won’t approve of any head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ex what these Ministers of Truth choose to call a “restructuring” of the agency.

The arguments made against the agency strain credulity. As the New York Times reports:

Will “False Claims” Lawsuit Against AIG, Goldman, Deutsche, BofA, SocGen on Fed Funding Lead to New Round of Embarrassing Revelations?

Litigation may be slowly doing the job missed or only partially completed by various governmental investigations into the financial crisis. The Valukas report on the Lehman bankruptcy was revealing, and numerous foreclosure defense attorneys have opened cans of worms that the powers that be would rather pretend simply don’t exist.

The New York Times reports tonight that a case filed last year was unsealed last week. It plumbs a continuing sore point with the public, namely the generous terms of the AIG bailout, both to the company (which defied the government and insisted on remaining largely intact when the plan had been to sell its various units to repay the government funding) and to its credit default swap counterparties. The litigation has the potential to be revealing, particularly if it goes into discovery (various depositions are likely to become public in pre-trial jousting, um, motions). The Times gives an overview:

UBS’s Magnus Warns of Risk of Chinese Minsky Moment

UBS strategist George Magnus helped popularize economist Hyman Minsky’s thinking in the runup to the financial crisis by warning of the likelihood of a “Minsky moment.” For those not familiar with Minsky’s work, a short overview from ECONNED:

Hyman Minsky, an economist at Washington University, observed [that] periods of stability actually produce instability. Economic growth and low defaults lead to greater confidence and, with it, lax lending.

In early stages of the economic cycle, thanks to fresh memories of tough times and defaults, lenders are stringent. Most borrowers can pay interest and repay the loan balance (principal) when it comes due. But even in those times, some debtors are what Minsky calls “speculative units” who cannot repay principal. They need to borrow again when their current loan matures, which makes
them hostage to market conditions when they need to roll their obligation. Minsky created a third category, “Ponzi units,” which can’t even cover the interest, but keep things going by selling assets and/or borrowing more and using the proceeds to pay the initial lender. Minsky’s observation:
Read more...

Goldman Cheats and Wins Again: Gets Special Treatment in UK Tax Abuse Settlement

How does Goldman get away with it again and again? Is it simply bribery? Well, we don’t call it bribes in advanced economies, since big fish typically have more complicated and indirect ways of rewarding people who help them out, but it amounts to the same thing. Or do they have the five by seven glossies on people in key positions of influence?

The latest sighting is in Private Eye, courtesy Michael Thomas. This is comparatively penny-ante stuff compared to other instances of Goldman winning at the expense of the general public. Here, the firm engaged in what is politely called a tax avoidance scheme:

Does CIA Assassination of Bin Laden Make Obama a Shoo-In for 2012?

As readers know, I’m not fan of the Obama Administration, but its success in killing Osama bin Laden, just announced on multiple news services and the subject of an imminent Presidential announcement, would seem to be a major positive for the beleagured chief executive. At this juncture, the Washington Post headline, “Source: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead, US in possession of body; Obama to speak Sunday night,” says more than the article:

Al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden is dead and the United States has his body, a person familiar with the developments says.

President Barack Obama is expected to make that announcement from the White House late Sunday night.

The person spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak ahead of the president.

How does this development change the election dynamics for 2012? Does this, as some correspondents have suggested, give Obama a lock for 2012, or could a flagging economy undo the boost he will get from this success? How does this change the prospects for various Republican presidential candidates?

Earth to Libertarians: Private Parties Have Coercive Power Too

I’m sick of the free pass given the libertarian blather, “The state is the only source of coercive power.” I doubt that many non-libertarians buy that assetion, but they too often remain silent because most libertarians are rabid on that issue and arguing with them is like talking to a wall. But since that bogus assertion has been showing up increasingly in comments here as right-wing plants are becoming more common, I might as well do a quick shred, since it does not take much effort to show this claim is nonsense.

Let’s look at some simple empirical examples of why this pet argument just ain’t so.

Arizona Representative Drops Chain of Title Notification Provision After Apparent Bribe by Servicer

If you thought the Friends of Angelo program, via which Countrywide gave very favorable mortgage terms to assorted Congresscritters, was pretty bald-faced, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

It appears the best way to get a deep principal mod in America is to represent a clear and present danger to the mortgage industrial complex.

The Booger Rule of Antitrust in the Debit Card Fight

Although we were big fans of the HuffPo piece yesterday on the DC war over debit card regulation, Adam Levitin was a bit less happy since the article focused on the politics and was on why the card fees were burdensome to merchants.

Although a few readers tried arguing the bank position and did not get a terribly enthusiastic reception, Levitin explains the real problem: the actions of the Visa/MasterCard duopoly are pretty clear antitrust violations, but as he pointed out via e-mail, the US pretty much does not do antitrust any more. The Chicago school of economics indoctrination of judges via an orchestrated “law and economics” movement (see ECONNED for an overview) has resulted in judges not seeing competitive problems anywhere. The Department of Justice has lost a slew of recent antitrust cases at the Supreme Court, so they’ve lost the appetite to pursue them.

But (to give an indication of how bad the behavior of the card networks is), the normally supine DoJ has been active in payment cards.

HuffPo Expose on the Biggest, Ugliest Fight in DC: Debit Card Fees

If you want to understand inside the Beltway politics, proceed immediately to a superb article by Zach Carter and Ryan Grim at Huffington Post, “The Swipe Fee War”. It is a meticulously reported piece over the number one fight in the nation’s capital, which contrary to headlines, is not the budget battle but proposed regulations over debit card fees, otherwise known as “interchange” fees. As Felix Salmon, Katie Porter, and Adam Levitin have written, the reason this battle is so hard fought is that it pits two big spending constituencies against each other: banks versus retailers, or as one Senator broke it down further:

The big greedy bastards against the big greedy bastards; the big greedy bastards against the little greedy bastards; and some cases even the other little greedy bastards against the other little greedy bastards

IRS Likely to Expand Mortgage Industry Coverup by Whitewashing REMIC Violations

As established readers know, we’ve been writing since mid 2010 about the widespread, possibly pervasive, failure of mortgage securitization originators to convey the notes (the borrower IOU) to securitization trusts as stipulated in the deal documents, well before the robo signing scandal broke. This abuse matters because the transaction procedures were designed carefully to satisfy certain legal requirements, among them rules contained in the 1986 Tax Reform Act regarding REMICs, or real estate mortgage investment conduits, which required that the securitization trust receive all its assets by 90 days after closing and that all assets conveyed to the trust have to be “performing”, as in not in default. Failure to comply with the rules is a prohibited act and subject to taxation at a rate of 100%, and additional penalties may apply.

Now, with the Federal government under enormous budget pressure, shouldn’t the authorities be keen to go after tax cheats? The headline of a Reuters article, “IRS weighs tax penalties on mortgage securities,” would suggest so. But don’t get your hopes up. The lesson is don’t jump to conclusions when big finance is involved.

Bill Black: My Class, right or wrong – the Powell Memorandum’s 40th Anniversary

Yves here. Black’s post discusses a turning point that is not as well known as it ought to be. Thanks to reader John M for bring this post to my attention.

By Bill Black, an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He is a white-collar criminologist, a former senior financial regulator, and the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Cross posted from New Economic Perspectives

August 23, 2011 will bring the 40th anniversary of one of the most successful efforts to transform America. Forty years ago the most influential representatives of our largest corporations despaired. They saw themselves on the losing side of history. They did not, however, give in to that despair, but rather sought advice from the man they viewed as their best and brightest about how to reverse their losses. That man advanced a comprehensive, sophisticated strategy, but it was also a strategy that embraced a consistent tactic – attack the critics and valorize corporations!

He issued a clarion call for corporations to mobilize their economic power to further their economic interests by ensuring that corporations dominated every influential and powerful American institution. Lewis Powell’s call was answered by the CEOs who funded the creation of Cato, Heritage, and hundreds of other movement centers.

Marshall Auerback: QE2 – The Slogan Masquarading as a Serious Policy

By Marshall Auerback, a portfolio strategist and hedge fund manager Cross posted from New Deal 2.0.

Bernanke’s QE2 program has hurt savers, done nothing for banks, and eviscerated middle class living standards.

The U.S. Federal Reserve signaled the end of its controversial $600 billion bond-buying program as planned. And not a moment too soon.