| The term red pill and its opposite, blue pill, are pop culture terms that have become a common symbol for the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red). |
| Take The Journey |
|
|
What They Got Away With
Chief executives at big banks take on big risks, and for that, they are paid millions. But what happens when the risks don’t pay off? Should CEOs still get to walk away from the wreckage with gilded severance packages while employees lumber off with boxes and broken dreams? Don’t taxpayers deserve a refund of multi-million-dollar payouts for paying billions to bail out these firms? Almost all these CEOs say no, but lately, Congress and federal regulators seems to be saying yes. Some compensation has been cut, and some could be capped under proposed regulations. Some ex-CEOs may face fraud charges, and a few have been hauled before Congress–such as those at AIG, which was lambasted by lawmakers for sending executives to a $440,000 junket after getting an $85 billion government bailout. Despite all this scrutiny, plenty of chiefs are still walking away with mountains of money. A look at some of these golden parachuters.
Continue reading
A Look at the Top 1% Shows Shift to Finance, Stability Within its Ranks and High Political Engagement
The Economist took a look at the top one percent and “the changing complexion of America’s rich.” It highlighted Mitt Romney as a reflection of this change, because “the wealthiest 1% of Americans not only get more of the pie,” but also because “they are increasingly creatures of finance.” There have been wealthy presidential candidates before, but Romney represents “the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance.”
The Economist writes of the shift to finance, “According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979.” A graphic from the New York Times also focuses on the occupational distribution of the top one percent.
Also indicative of the shift to finance, it appears that the wealthiest of the wealthy are now employed in financial occupations, a change from years past. “[Steve] Kaplan [of the University of Chicago] and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers, corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporate executives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investors earned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives of companies in the S&P 500 stock index combined.”
What does a household in the top one percent make? “The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data.” But The Economist notes, “The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008.” Of course, income is not the only measurement of wealth: “Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007.”
The Economist cites Mr. Kaplan, who argues that the move to finance largely accounts for the growth in the wealth gap. “Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated (see chart). The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009.”
Continue reading
Why isn’t Wall Street in jail?
Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail?
Financial crooks brought down the world’s economy — but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them
Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.
“Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail,” he said. “That’s your whole story right there. Hell, you don’t even have to write the rest of it. Just write that.”
I put down my notebook. “Just that?”
“That’s right,” he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. “Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there.”
Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.
In a “Hypothecated” World, Who Owns Physical Gold and Silver
The implications of the MF Global collapse continues to reverberate, with news appearing today that ownership of a MF Global client’s physical gold and silver bars, which was almost certainly ”hypothecated,” are now in dispute.
As we pointed out yesterday in MF Global’s Missing Money and Jon Corzine’s Feebleness, the $1.2 billion lost in client assets occured when MF Global borrowed client assets to fund its own proprietary position. To do this, the firm “hypothecated,” or borrowed client assets and effected a repurchase agreeement whereby it sold these assets for cash, with the promise of buying them back at a later date. What is key here however, is that the bank that lent the funds to MF Global, which is secured by borrowed client assets, “holds a right to take possession of the property if the borrower should default.”
In Bloomberg today, this has indeed taken place, and a MF Global client finds his ownership rights to several gold and silver bars in dispute. In an article titled HSBC Sues MF Global Brokerage Over 20 Bars of Gold, Silver on Desposit, HSBC has sued MF Global’s trustee to establish ownership of gold and silver bars worth about $850,000.
Serious Implications
Any investor with a futures… Continue reading
Euro Crisis Destabilizing the Dollar
In response to pressure from Wall Street, the White House and central banks in Europe, the Federal Reserve last week drastically cut interest rates for currency swaps to benefit troubled European banks. This will flood world markets with more dollars and will soon mean rising prices for every American at the grocery store. This extra liquidity will temporarily ease the cash crunch for irresponsible bankers, but in the long run it will make the situation much worse for consumers all over the world. Equities markets registered big gains at the news, but only for a day. Make no mistake – this is not capitalism, and this is not how a free market operates. In a free market, bankruptcies happen, even to large banks. We must remember, free markets are the true and best regulators of financial mismanagement.
By contrast, under our current form of special interest corporatism certain businesses are granted too-big-to-fail status and are never allowed to go bankrupt. They keep profits generated during the good times generated by the Fed’s monetary inflation, yet their losses are socialized through inflationary bailouts. This means you and your family eventually pay for the Fed’s decisions because every dollar you earn is… Continue reading
Hank Paulson’s inside jobs
What on earth did Hank Paulson think his job was in the summer of 2008? As far as most of us were concerned, he was secretary of the US Treasury, answerable to the US people and to the president. But at the same time, in secret meetings, Paulson was hanging out with his old Goldman Sachs buddies, giving them invaluable information about what he was thinking in his new job.
The first news of this behavior came in October 2009, when Andrew Ross Sorkin revealed that Paulson had met with the entire board of Goldman Sachs in a Moscow hotel suite for an hour at the end of June 2008. He told them his views of the US and global economies, he previewed a market-moving speech he was about to give, and he even talked about the possibility that Lehman Brothers might blow up. Maybe it’s not so surprising that Goldman Sachs turned out to be so well positioned when Lehman did indeed do just that a few months later.
Today we learn that the Goldman meeting in Moscow was not some kind of aberration. A few weeks later, on July 28 2008, Paulson met with a who’s who of the hedge-fund world in the headquarters of Eton Park Capital Management — a fund founded by former Goldman superstar Eric Mindich.
The secretary, then 62, went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” — a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets…
Paulson explained that under this scenario, the common stock of the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, would be effectively wiped out…
The fund manager who described the meeting left after coffee and called his lawyer. The attorney’s quick conclusion: Paulson’s talk was material nonpublic information, and his client should immediately stop trading the shares of Washington- based Fannie and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie.
