NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label ben bernanke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ben bernanke. Show all posts

26 July 2013

Yellen vs. Summers: Who would be a better Fed chair? 25JUL13

I have a hard time trusting larry summers because of the responsibility he shares for the deregulation of our financial institutions that lead to this great recession that we are still in and his unwillingness to reject the too big to jail attitude prevalent in congress, the Obama administration and the bank-financial regulatory agencies. Janet Yellen is may is an unknown, doesn't have the history of summers, isn't tainted by questions involving relationships with the bank-financial cabal. Here is a short outline on the qualifications and questions about policy on summers and Yellen from the Washington Post's Wonkbook....
Janet Yellen (Federal Reserve/Flickr)
Janet Yellen or Larry Summers: Who has the right skills to be Fed chair?  (Federal Reserve/Flickr)
The president’s decision on whom to nominate to be the next Federal Reserve chair increasingly appears to be coming down to Larry Summers and Janet Yellen. Ezra describes well what appears to be the state of play here: The president, or at least the people close to him, are leaning toward Summers, but are in the midst of assessing just how stiff the blowback will be if the polarizing former treasury secretary gets the nod.
But let’s back up a minute. What are the traits we really want in a successful Federal Reserve chair, and what do we know about Summers’s and Yellen’s capabilities, and limits, on each?
First things first: No one is really qualified to be chairman of the Federal Reserve until they’ve done the job for a while, and some not even at that point (cough G. William Miller). It is in many ways an impossible job, requiring a person to be simultaneously a skilled economist, crisis manager, politician, administrator, and regulator;  Bernanke himself was in some key respects underqualified when he was first nominated for the job in 2005.
That is not a problem either Yellen or Summers would face. Both are, on paper, extraordinarily qualified, having spent many years at the highest levels of economic policymaking. But what do we know about their specific skills and weaknesses on each of those frontiers? Here’s some analysis, based on years of closely watching both Summers and Yellen and conversations with those who have worked for or with them.
Economist. Above all else, the Fed chair needs to make the right calls: When to hike interest rates, when to buy more bonds or fewer. And that requires excellent macroeconomic judgment. Both Yellen and Summers are accomplished academic economists with a long track record of publishing journal articles on macroeconomic topics.
Yellen is one of the key engineers of the Fed’s current strategy of pairing monthly bond purchases with “forward guidance” to explain to markets the future path of policy. Summers has been largely quiet about his views on the proper direction of monetary policy in recent years, no doubt in part to maintain viability as a possible nominee for Fed chair (though the Financial Times reported today that he expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of quantitative easing at a private conference recently). Add it all up, and we just don’t know in advance how a Summers Fed might differ from the Bernanke Fed, though we do know that Yellen is almost certain to maintain continuity with the strategy she helped put in place.
Crisis manager. When the financial feces hits the fan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve invariably plays a crucial role cleaning it up, as Bernanke knows all too well. The White House, according to Ezra’s reporting, tends to view Summers more favorably on this count. It is true that he was a key member of the team that led the response to international crises in the late 1990s (his presence on the famous Time magazine “Committee to Save the World” cover may seem cringe-inducing now, however).
Source: Time Magazine
Source: Time Magazine
Yellen was at the San Francisco Fed during the darkest days of the Fed’s response to the current crisis, not among Bernanke inner circle in Washington and New York making the nitty-gritty, middle-of-the-night decisions on whether to bail out this investment bank or that insurance company.  People who have worked with her describe her as exceptionally careful and deliberative—usually desirable qualities in a central banker. The question is whether, if a crisis hits during a Yellen chairmanship, she can make the fast decisions with imperfect information that are inherent to responding to a crisis. It’s worth adding that Bernanke had no real relevant experience in this area before becoming chair, and acquitted himself remarkably well.
Politician. The Fed chair must navigate the shoals of politics, representing their institution on Capitol Hill and with the White House. Summers has more experience in this aspect of the job, having served as treasury secretary and chief White House economic adviser. That doesn’t necessarily mean he will be better at it; he has a frequently abrasive personality that has earned him plenty of enemies on the Hill over the years. There has already been a surprising amount of blowback from senators to his potential nomination in the last few days, including a tweet from Sen. Jeff Merkeley (D-Ore.) that a Summers nomination would be “disconcerting.”
But it’s also worth noting that Yellen has had a lower profile than Summers over the last 15 years, and thus been less subject to the kind of partisan maw that a Fed chair finds themselves in the middle of. In three years as vice-chair of the Fed, Yellen has not testified before Congress a single time. Indeed, the last time she did testify, in her confirmation hearing to become vice-chair in July 2010, she initially bungled her response to the first question. Sen. Richard Shelby pointed out that many of the banks that Yellen regulated as president of the San Francisco Fed had failed, and asked what role did she think a breakdown in regulation played in those failures. She began her answer, “Working with other regulators, I think that our regulatory oversight was careful and appropriate,” prompting Shelby to interrupt her, seemingly astounded that she was defending pre-crisis bank regulation. Yellen recovered fine, acknowledging the failures of pre-crisis bank regulation, but it was a small example of how she would need to work on navigating minefields in testimony if named Fed chief.
In short, Summers has pre-existing sour relations with some lawmakers, but also less of a learning curve.
Administrator. The chairman of the Fed is the ultimate authority over a sprawling, complicated Federal Reserve system, encompassing 12 banks and 18,000 employees, responsible for everything from regulating banks to managing the payments systems through which trillions of dollars flow each day.
Yellen has a clear edge on experience, having served as president of the San Francisco Fed and vice-chair of the Fed system; in that role she has had particularly responsibility for overseeing “reserve bank affairs,” such as reviewing and approving the banks’ budgets.
Summers has administered large organizations, namely the Treasury Department and Harvard University, but his experience at Harvard, where he resigned under pressure, is probably not a line on his resume he wishes to emphasize. Incidentally, for the Fed economists and other staff who work directly for the chair, either would likely prove a demanding boss; both have reputations as expecting much from their subordinates.
Regulator. Much of the immediate criticism to a possible Summers nomination, particularly from the left, has boiled down to this: He was part of the Clinton-era deregulatory zeal of the late 1990s that helped cause the financial crisis. And that’s true! But as Ezra reports, the sense in the White House is that Summers is a changed man, and is inclined toward a more restrictive view of what financial firms should be able to do (and how much capital they need to hold) than he was in the past.
One reason to give them some benefit of the doubt: Summers was a key White House staffer as the Obama administration pushed the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, so if he had been a force for loosening the law in internal debates, the president and his inner circle would be well aware of it.
Yellen, meanwhile, is known more for her role shaping monetary policy than as an architect of bank regulatory policies at the Fed (which is more under the purview of Governor Dan Tarullo), and would likely embrace continuity with the Tarullo/Bernanke strategy of pushing for higher capital requirements and other restrictions on mega-banks.
The post-crisis Fed chair faces a harder job now than when Bernanke took it on eight years ago. And in making his choice, President Obama will have to weigh which of these roles–and which type of background–really matters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/25/yellen-vs-summers-who-would-be-a-better-fed-chair/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm

15 August 2012

Revealed: Romney Campaign’s Attempts to Deny Paul Ryan’s Insider Trading Don't Add Up 14AUG12

Given the wanton greed, the kow-towing to his rich and corporate masters and the callous disregard of the plight of common people in his budget proposal it is not difficult to believe rep paul ryan r WI did profit from insider trading right before the economy crashed into recession. Some will point out that other members of Congress and other government officials probably did too. Probably so, and they are wrong for doing so, but the difference is they are not seeking to be VP. Consider this from Alternet...
Team Romney wants you to believe Ryan didn’t really profit from privileged information. Don’t buy it.
 
Photo Credit: AFP
Over the weekend, the Richmonder blog broke what looked like a whopper of a story: that Republican vice-presidential hopeful Paul Ryan had lined his pockets from information he had obtained from a now-legendary meeting that took place on September 18, 2008. On that day, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson broke the news to congressional leaders that they would have to approve a bailout to avert a complete meltdown of the financial system.
America was lurching toward catastrophe. But some folks were apparently thinking about their stock portfolios.
Checking through Ryan’s financial disclosure reports, the Richmonder discovered that Ryan had sold the stocks of several major banks that day, while purchasing – surprise! – stock in Paulson’s old firm Goldman Sachs. The story quickly circulated through the media.
The Romney campaign rapidly issued denials, based on three separate -- and clearly false -- claims: 1) the trades were not individual stock trades, but trades made as part of an index that trades big blocs of stocks according to preset formulas; 2) the meeting took place in the evening, after markets were closed, so the meeting could not have played a role in Ryan’s trading decisions; and 3) the stocks traded within a trust over which Ryan had no direct authority.
In many quarters, acceptance of the denials came almost as fast as the news of the original report. Benjy Sarlin of Talking Points Memo issued a report “debunking” the Richmonder story, stating that “the rumor, which spread rapidly across the Internet, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.” Matt Yglesias over at Slate, who had first credited the story, backtracked, apologizing that he had been too “credulous” in accepting the Richmonder report.
Look again.
First of all, the Romney campaign’s claim that the transactions were index trades is not consistent with what’s in the original disclosure reports. AlterNet discussed the controversy with money and politics expert Thomas Ferguson, who has written extensively on the bailout. He explained, “Ryan did own some index-based securities, but they stand out in the summaries. They are different from the many trades Ryan was making in individual stocks. It is perfectly obvious that he sold shares in Wachovia, Citigroup and J. P. Morgan on September 18 and he bought shares in Paulson’s old firm, Goldman Sachs, on the same day. If these were index trades, what’s on the form is nonsense.”
While it’s not possible to pinpoint exactly what Ryan knew and when he knew it, the whole episode becomes more disturbing the deeper you look into it.
Citing accounts from congressional circles, Ferguson explains that Paulson had been told by the White House not to discuss the darkening situation with Congress. But sometime between 2:30 and 3pm on September 18, Paulson finally spoke with then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. He told her that a very bad situation had developed, and that it could involve something much worse than the failure of a giant bank, possibly even a broad collapse of the whole economy. Pelosi immediately demanded that Paulson come over and brief congressional leaders. He agreed. Ferguson reports that his sources say the meeting did indeed begin after markets closed. But he also notes that word of the meeting circulated to the leaders well before markets closed at 4pm.
Since Ryan is a Republican, he may well have gotten word from the White House about the gravity of the situation even earlier. If you knew that Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke were coming to brief you as stock markets fell around the world, that’s really all you needed to know to do the trades in Ryan’s portfolio.
If you swallow the idea that Ryan just happened to buy Goldman stock that day -- a day he just happened to have a meeting with Hank Paulson, the firm’s former CEO, well, then I have some unicorns I’d like to introduce you to.
Ferguson scoffs at the notion: “There’s a lot we don’t know about the famous waiver that Paulson is said eventually to have gotten to talk to his old firm. When I asked about it under a Freedom of Information request, virtually everything I got back was blacked out. But I’ll tell you this. It was not exactly an Einsteinian inspiration to guess that Paulson’s old firm might be a good bet if things were so bad that Hank Paulson was coming to the Hill.”
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But if you’re a member of Congress, the odds are curiously in your favor. As I reported on AlterNet several months ago, in-depth research undertaken in 2004 considered to be the baseline work in the field revealed that from 1993-1998, US senators were beating the market by 12 percentage points a year on average. Corporate insiders only beat the market by a measly 5 percent. Typical households, in contrast, underperformed by 1.4 percent.
And as to the Romney campaign’s claim that Ryan was not legally in control of his investments, let’s just say that this idea gives the notion of the “Invisible Hand” new meaning.
What’s most disturbing is the notion of a man like Paul Ryan focusing so heavily on his portfolio while his country was in peril. Ryan’s surely a guy who would answer the phone at 3am – provided it's his stockbroker calling.
Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet contributing editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of 'Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.' Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore. 

13 July 2012

Stop the J.P. Morgan Loophole 13JUL12

THERE are a few in Congress not afraid to challenge the bank-financial cabal, Sen Merkley D OR is one of them. Hope you will add your name to his petition....

Below is an email from U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, who is leading the charge for a ban on high-risk trading by big Wall Street banks, including J.P. Morgan. Sen. Merkley created a petition on SignOn.org that's spreading like wildfire. Now, he's asking for help from MoveOn members in Virginia and across America.

Bankers on Wall Street wrecked our economy by taking reckless risks in pursuit of massive paydays. And, as J.P. Morgan has made clear, Wall Street learned nothing and is still gambling.
If you agree that big banks should not gamble with the federally insured deposits that families and small businesses depend on, click here to sign my petition:
I successfully fought for a ban on high-risk trading by big Wall Street banks. This rule, called the Volcker rule firewall, is meant to ensure that when Wall Street's bad bets blow up, you and I don't get burned again. But for the last two years, Wall Street's legion of lobbyists have been trying to blow holes in that firewall.
Wall Street lobbyists want the Fed to write the J.P. Morgan loophole into law. We can't let that happen. And with your help, we won't. Pleaseadd your name to my SignOn.org petition urging Ben Bernanke and the Fed to close down the J.P. Morgan loophole.
Thanks!
–U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley
This petition was created on SignOn.org, the progressive, nonprofit petition site that will never sell your email address and will never promote a petition because someone paid us to. SignOn.org is sponsored by MoveOn Civic Action, which is not responsible for the contents of this or other petitions posted on the site.
 

25 March 2011

BOHICA!!! Who Screwed the Middle Class? 25MAR11

BOHICA working and middle class America! This from Mother Jones explaining why unemployment and economic inequality are government policy....
I've written several times before about Winner-Take-All Politics, in which Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that middle-class wage stagnation and growing income inequality are due as much to political decisions over the past 30 years as they are to broad economic trends. I find their arguments persuasive, but there's no question that it's a tough case to make. After all, exactly which political decisions are we talking about? Can we point to specific pieces of legislation or specific agency decisions that have retarded wage growth? In fact, we can—things like tax policy, financial deregulation, the decline of antitrust enforcement, and anti-union rulings by the NLRB all played a role. By themselves, though, these just aren't enough to account for what's happened. So what's the smoking gun when it comes to the impact of politics on wage stagnation and growing income inequality?
I think Lane Kenworthy fingered the right culprit a few weeks ago: the abandonment in recent decades of full employment as even a rhetorical goal of American economic policy:
The post–World War II experiences of the rich democracies suggest three routes to rising working- and middle-class wages. One is an environment in which firms face only moderate competition in product markets and limited pressure from shareholders, allowing them to pass on a significant share of growth to their employees. This characterized the period from the late 1940s through the mid 1970s, but it’s now long gone. The second is strong unions. I see little hope of that in America’s future. The third is full employment.
But full employment is only possible if the Federal Reserve is committed to it, and this is decidedly no longer the case: "Since the late 1970s, independent central banks such as the Fed almost always have prioritized low inflation, rendering low unemployment difficult to achieve. If the Fed isn’t on board, even a workable plan for full employment supported by the American public and our elected officials probably won’t be enough."
Following the stagflation of the 70s, conservatives decisively took over Fed policy and put it in the service of the wealthy, prioritizing low inflation over low unemployment and tacitly promising bailouts whenever Wall Street found itself in danger (a practice charmingly known as the "Greenspan put"). Matt Yglesias has a useful piece in Democracy this month arguing that progressives need to take the Fed far more seriously if we ever want to have any chance of reversing this:
Central banks and monetary policy are the primary determinant of short-term economic conditions—of the unemployment rate, and thus of workers’ ability to bargain for wages. This is, clearly, a hugely important subject in its own right. But it’s also a critical determinant of overall political conditions.
....But when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, he rather hastily chose to reappoint [Ben] Bernanke, creating a situation in which no Democrat has held the most important domestic policy job in the land since 1987. He inherited two vacancies on the Board of Governors that he left open for over a year, only putting names forward after a third vacancy emerged in 2010....Of course, no one can know for sure what the Fed would have done had Obama picked someone other than Bernanke to chair it or filled the vacancies more rapidly. But it’s certainly plausible that different personnel would have led to swifter and more forceful moves toward monetary stimulus, a more rapid end to the recession, and a lower unemployment rate.
A lot has happened over the past 30 years, but if you're looking for a single political sea change that's had the biggest impact on middle class wages—more important than union decline, more important than NAFTA, more important than the end of Glass-Steagall—it's the political consensus that underlies the Fed's reluctance to allow labor markets to stay tight enough to generate wage increases in the real economy. And it's something we're seeing all over again right now, as the DC chattering classes have almost unanimously decided that inflation is our real enemy right now, even though core inflation is running around 1% and unemployment is still near 9%.
This is a policy beloved of the business community, which prefers loose labor markets that keep wages low and executive compensation high, but it hasn't always been the Fed's policy and it's not written in stone that it has to be now. Tight labor markets and rising middle-class wages are, to a large extent, a choice we make. Politics took them away 30 years ago, and politics can return them to us if we want.
Front page image: Celine Nadeau
Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. Get Kevin Drum's RSS feed.

03 December 2010

A Real Jaw Dropper at the Federal Reserve 2NOV10

THE greed in this country is disgusting; corporations and banks, foreign and domestic, feeding at the corporate and financial welfare trough on taxpayer funds while the poor, working class and middle class can't get a break, can't get mortgages refinanced, can't get tax relief (unless the rich get more than them), can't get an extension on unemployment, can't get adequate funding for jobs training and relocation support. So thanks to Sen Bernie Sanders I VT we are getting more proof of how corporate and financial America and international financial institutions have been controlling and manipulating the American Federal Government and the American Federal Reserve. It is jaw dropping, absolutely amazing. Unfortunately, with the results of Novembers mid-term elections and the gop and tea-baggers running the House for the benefit of the plutocrats of Republicorp we can only expect more attempts of the same.....so BOHICA!
 
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from the Federal Reserve, how much they received, and the exact terms of this assistance. He refused. A year and a half later, as a result of an amendment that I was able to include in the Wall Street reform bill, we have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed, and the American people now have this information.
It is unfortunate that it took this long, and it is a shame that the biggest banks in America and Mr. Bernanke fought to keep this secret from the American public every step of the way. But, the details on this bailout are now on the Federal Reserve's website, and this is a major victory for the American taxpayer and for transparency in government.
Importantly, my amendment also required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of all of the emergency lending the Fed provided during the financial crisis to be completed on July 21, 2011, which will take a hard look at all of the potential conflicts of interest that took place with respect to this bailout. So, in many respects, details that the Fed was forced to divulge on Wednesday about the $3.3 trillion in emergency loans that until now were totally kept from public scrutiny, marked the beginning, not the end, of lifting the veil of secrecy at the Fed.
After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions and how we can make our financial institutions more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans and small businesses.
What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.
We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.
Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks -- Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse -- which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.
Deutsche Bank, a German lender, sold the Fed more than $290 billion worth of mortgage securities. Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank, sold the Fed more than $287 billion in mortgage bonds.
Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?
The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened.
What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans.
For example, at a time when big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Fed, the Fed did not require these institutions to increase lending to small- and medium-sized businesses as a condition of the bailout.
At a time when large corporations are more profitable than ever, the Fed did not demand that corporations that received this backdoor bailout create jobs and expand the economy once they returned to profitability.
I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases, turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing Treasury Securities. Instead of using this money to reinvest in the productive economy, I suspect a large portion of these near-zero interest loans were used to buy Treasury Securities at a higher interest rate providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country. That is something that we have got to closely examine.
At a time when Wall Street executives are now making more money than before the financial crisis, how many big banks that paid back TARP funds in 2009 to avoid limits on executive compensation received no-strings-attached loans from the Federal Reserve?
At a time when millions of Americans are paying outrageously high credit card interest rates, why didn't the Fed require credit card issuers to lower interest rates as a condition of the bailout?
The four largest banks in this country (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) issue half of all mortgages in this country. We now know that these banks received hundreds of billions from the Fed. How many Americans could have remained in their homes, if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?
We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook.
 
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Twitter: www.twitter.com/senatorsanders
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from...
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from...
Related News On Huffington Post:
Wall Street Banks In Talks To Settle SEC Lawsuit Over CDOs

As the government hunts for conflicts of interest at Wall Street banks that peddled investments which contributed to the worst financial collapse since the Great...
Bernie Sanders Blasts Wall Street, Government In Wake Of Fed Disclosures (VIDEO)

Self-avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blasted the nation's major financial institutions and the government's failure to hold them accountable in a Wednesday-night appearance on...
Bailouts Are For Banks: Unemployed People Get Zilch

In Washington, the agenda has long since moved on from bailing out megabanks to figuring out how to stop paying for things that regular people...
Fed Directors Banks Lavished With Billions From Fed

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta made six major loans to SunTrust Banks at the height of the financial crisis totaling at least $7.5 billion....