Showing posts with label shadow banking system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shadow banking system. Show all posts

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Bombshell!

Greetings good citizen,

Once again we see a major scandal being broken over the weekend so come Monday they can pretend it is ‘old news’.

This is one of those ‘why are they telling us this?’ kind of stories.

The implications here go deeper than just some ‘isolated criminal behavior’ at ‘some’ European banks. We’re talking the Fed here, that ‘private corporation’ that manages ALL of the United States money!

And those crooks were ‘wise’ to this criminal activity…and probably traded on the information as well!

You would imagine they would ‘dummy up’ and pretend the criminals were just ‘too slick’ for the remnants of the regulatory apparatus they have left…but no.

Instead we get a ‘confession’.

Yeah we knew and no we didn’t do anything about it.

You’d almost expect a statement like that to be followed with a gruff ‘not my job, man.’

Here’s the ‘reveal’:
The New York Fed learned about concerns over the integrity of Libor in summer 2007, when a Barclays employee e-mailed a New York Fed official, saying, “Draw your own conclusions about why people are going for unrealistically low” rates. Barclays wrote in a September report, “Our feeling is that Libors are again becoming rather unrealistic and do not reflect the true cost of borrowing.”

But the New York Fed thought the reports amounted to market chatter and did not provide definitive proof of widespread manipulation. “In the context of our market monitoring following the onset of the financial crisis in late 2007, involving thousands of calls and e-mails with market participants over a period of many months, we received occasional anecdotal reports from Barclays of problems with Libor,” the New York Fed statement said.

The regulator started to identify real problems with the interest rates several months later. In April 2008, the Barclays employee mentioned to a New York Fed official, “where I would be able to borrow” in the Libor market, “without question it would be higher than the rate that I’m actually putting in.”

That same day, New York Fed officials wrote in a weekly internal memo that banks appeared to be understating the interest rates they would pay.

Okay, if we hop back into our playback machine we’d find that the wheels had already come flying off the banking system by the Spring of 2008, the ‘gimmicked’ libor was done to protect the bankers from having to write down their shakier assets to a more realistic level.

Not that they would have anyway, the libor only served as ‘eyewash’.

Which is to point out the obvious, a small draft, a tiny one in fact would be all it would take to blow down the ‘house of cards’ the bankers built.

The Great Recession and the ongoing economic hardship…all caused by the bankers, who were in fact ‘covering’ for the capitalists who are using the crisis to cement their monopolies!

Which is to again, belabor the obvious. We need some Law and Order now!

And we won’t get any justice from the SAME ASSHOLES who looked the other way when all of this was going down…nope. We have to kick things off by ‘purging’ them first!

Make no mistake about it good citizen, we will not see either Law or Order as long as either of the two ‘lapdogs of the >One Percent’ hold the reins of power. [Conservative or Liberal, take your pick.]

While the dreamers among us pretend all we have to do is ‘roar’ loud enough, the more practical take a more pragmatic view.

Those reins won’t get surrendered without our pointing a gun at their head.

Anything less will be a charade.

Again, the results will speak for themselves.

Which is to ask, what do YOU think should be the ‘penalty’ for betraying the public trust? (Technically called Treason.)

The longstanding punishment for this crime is death by hanging…but the criminals running this pop stand have re-written a lot of the rules.

Which only strengthens the case for returning to the ‘old way’ of doing things.

Now, the question to ask yourself is whether or not this ‘admission’ by the Fed constitutes a violation of the ‘public trust’…

They KNEW there was criminal activity and they took no action…so the crime, as it stands, is one of ‘omission’. They didn’t act when they should have.

Treason is a real slippery slope, those guilty of it would like to make it a crime to accuse anyone of committing treason…that pretzel logic problem of being a traitor for turning a traitor in.

Which is to arrive full circle at a large question, good citizen.

We have definitely arrived at a time when we desperately need to discuss the kind of society we want to have…and the operative word here is WE!

Thanks for letting me inside your head,

Gegner


Thursday, August 6, 2009

Miracles never cease....

Greetings good citizen,

Tonight we return to a topic that has only briefly appeared in the MSM. When the topic did briefly appear in the MSM, it wasn’t displayed ‘in context’.

In fact, in the ‘post bailout’ period, the topic has disappeared from the public discourse, too bad we can’t say the same for the actual practice as well.

Without further adieu, let us proceed to tonight’s offering and see how many of you can puzzle out what I’m ‘babbling’ about…

[Hat tip: Loose cannon]

Goldman Sachs $100 Million Trading Days Reach Record (Update3)

By Christine Harper

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. made more than $100 million in trading revenue on a record 46 separate days during the second quarter, or 71 percent of the time, breaking the previous high of 34 days in the prior three months.

Trading losses occurred on two days during April, May and June, down from eight in the first quarter, the New York-based bank said today in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company made at least $50 million on 58 of the 65 trading days in the period, or 89 percent of the time.

Goldman Sachs, which was [?] the biggest U.S. securities firm before converting to a bank last year, posted the biggest profit in its history during the second quarter as revenue from trading and equity underwriting reached all-time highs. The company, which has returned $10 billion to the U.S. Treasury and paid $1.42 billion in dividends and to cancel warrants, also made its largest market bets during the period.

“It’s very counterintuitive to think that they’d be able to generate this much profit and this much revenue in the middle of an ongoing recession,” said William Cohan, a former banker at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Lazard Ltd. and author of “House of Cards” about the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos. “But the fact that so many of their competitors are out of business or severely wounded has put them in a very strong position.” [Or so they’d have you believe good citizen.]

Trading Days

In fiscal year 2008, the firm had 90 days in which traders made more than $100 million, compared with 88 in 2007. In fiscal 2006, the figure was 49 days, up from 18 in 2005 and 14 in 2004. Goldman Sachs changed its fiscal year in 2009 to end in December instead of November. [Which has nothing to do with the price of tea in China…]

Goldman Sachs’s trading results reflected the firm’s willingness to take on more risk during the period. Value-at- risk, an estimate of how much the firm could lose in any given day, rose to an average of $245 million in the second quarter from $240 million in the first quarter and $184 million in the second quarter of 2008. Most of the increase in the second quarter came from bets on equities, the company said. [Did it really?]

“They take risks for their clients and for themselves and they’ve figured out a way in this market, with less competition bidding for these things, to make money,” Cohan said. [Sound ‘plausible’ to you good citizen?]

Trading and principal investments accounted for 78 percent of the bank’s revenue in the second quarter of 2009, up from 59 percent in the second quarter of 2008. Net interest income, the difference between the interest the firm pays and what it charges, climbed 60 percent from the second quarter of 2008 as the company’s interest expense dropped 83 percent.

FDIC Backing

Banks such as Goldman Sachs are benefiting from lower borrowing costs after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in October started guaranteeing bank debt issues that mature within three years. Goldman Sachs said in today’s filing it had $25.1 billion of debt guaranteed by the FDIC under the agency’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. The bank sold about $30 billion of the FDIC-backed securities between November and March, according to company filings.

Today’s filing showed the weighted average interest rate paid by Goldman Sachs on its unsecured short-term borrowings dropped to 1.70 percent in June from 2.14 percent in March and from 3.37 percent in November. [Doesn’t the word ‘unsecured’ imply that these funds were NOT guaranteed by the FDIC?]

Goldman Sachs is cooperating with government agencies and regulators making inquiries into its compensation practices, according to the filing. The board is reviewing letters from shareholders demanding an investigation of pay practices and recovery of any “excessive compensation,” the filing showed.

The company said it received inquiries from regulators about credit derivative instruments, and is cooperating. Goldman Sachs settled a lawsuit related to Enron Corp. on Aug. 3 and is waiting court approval. The filing didn’t provide details on the case or identify any of the regulators.


I expect most of you are still mystified by what I’m driving at as there aren’t any direct clues in this article.

Um, one phrase you hear repeatedly is the term ‘de-leveraging’, that both consumers and the economy are in the process of ‘shedding’ excess leverage.

What do you suppose this means? I’m sure most of you have brushed this off as meaningless ‘techno-babble’ dreamed up by economists and you’d be more than half right. You’re not supposed to know what it means.

To better understand how you ended up ‘over-leveraged’, we need to return to the credit crisis and examine why things fell apart like they did.

Anyone who is ‘underwater’ or upside down in a loan is essentially ‘over-leveraged’, they owe more than the asset was actually worth.

Banks became over-leveraged when they sold the same debt repeatedly to different investors. These sliced and diced ‘investment vehicles’ is what created the ‘shadow banks’.

Understand that the ‘shadow banks’ created a shitload more money and credit then actually existed in the ‘real’ economy.

These ‘fake’ financial instruments were sold to…you guessed it, institutional investors for the ‘real’ cash held in retirement accounts.

The fact that poor underwriting practices caused many of these products to default, despite their AAA ratings, was well known to the, um, counterfeiters.

A trickle of defaults quickly became a flood and the whole scheme fell apart.

But it hasn’t ended. Something else was going on behind the creation and distribution of this ‘funny money’. These instruments were used as collateral to create credit which CEO’s used to buy back their own stocks.

Reduce the number of outstanding shares and you instantly raised share value, which was the basis by which many CEO’s were compensated. Even small moves in a companies share price could result in millions of dollars worth of ‘bonuses’ for the company’s executives.

While the average person was subsidizing their lifestyle by dashing off loan payments from their home equity line of credit, this credit was being ‘securitized’ and sold to fund stock buy back programs that often exceeded a firms yearly profits.

So what did we end up with? Debt being sold not once but several times that quickly overwhelmed the ability to pay.

This mountain of debt is estimated to be in the quadrillion dollar range…and there isn’t a quadrillion dollars on the whole freaking planet!

Which begs a different question…since everyone is effectively ‘broke’, how is Goldman managing to increase the number of 100 million dollar trading days?

It doesn’t seem logical, does it?

Thanks for letting me inside your head,

Gegner