Update: (July 1): The alternative sites have just picked this up today July 1. See 321gold (via Press TV, Daily Reckoning)… Chuckle. You get the scoop here…
One more call for replacement of the dollar with SDRs, which will be under central management at the BIS (Bank of International Settlements). My notes in italics.
“A new United Nations report released on Tuesday calls for abandoning the U.S. dollar as the main global reserve currency, saying it has been unable to safeguard value.
From Bill Barrow at The Times-Picayune, June 18, 2010:
Gov. Bobby Jindal could face tough decision on opening his oil spill records
The House of Representatives voted 77-12 today to ratify Senate changes on a public records bill that would require the governor to grant public access to all state records related to the Gulf oil spill, putting Gov. Bobby Jindal in uncomfortable position politically.
#1) Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of more than 17,000 National Guard members along the Gulf coast to be used “as needed” by state governors. So what are all of these National Guard troops going to be doing exactly? Are the troops going to be used to stop the oil or to control the public?
“The Obama Administration and senior BP officials are frantically working not to stop the world’s worst oil disaster, but to hide the true extent of the actual ecological catastrophe. Senior researchers tell us that the BP drilling hit one of the oil migration channels and that the leakage could continue for years unless decisive steps are undertaken, something that seems far from the present strategy.
In a recent discussion, Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and the Russian State University of Oil and Gas, predicted that the present oil spill flooding the Gulf Coast shores of the United States “could go on for years and years … many years.” [1]
According to Kutcherov, a leading specialist in the theory of abiogenic deep origin of petroleum, “What BP drilled into was what we call a ‘migration channel,’ a deep fault on which hydrocarbons generated in the depth of our planet migrate to the crust and are accumulated in rocks, something like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.” [2] Ghawar, the world’s most prolific oilfield has been producing millions of barrels daily for almost 70 years with no end in sight. According to the abiotic science, Ghawar like all elephant and giant oil and gas deposits all over the world, is located on a migration channel similar to that in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.
Cassandra Anderson at Freedom Advocates sounds the alert about the underhanded push for “sustainable development” - Agenda 21 - through ‘Cap and Trade”.
(By the way, we’re all for sustainable development as long as it’s voluntary and comes without the heavy hand of the kleptocracy. So too we’re all for caring for the environment, choosing your family size wisely, reusing resources, and cultivating modesty, restraint, and thrift as essential components of the supremely capitalist moral virtue of prudence. But we’re not for any of these things when they’re hustled through surreptitiously as part of an agenda of top-down control and expropriation of people’s wealth and work). (more…)
The case gets stranger. Lorenzana was on a 2003 TV serial, giggling about breast implant surgery she’d had. Knowing that, would any lawyer have framed her case the way it was? Of course, this doesn’t mean she wasn’t the target of harassment. The surgery itself says nothing. It’s commonplace. Do men who take viagra or steroids lose their civil rights? No. And a competent corporate lawyer would, of course, make it the first order of business to establish that the plaintiff in a harassment suit was a slut and “asking for it.” That’s quite usual. But I remain suspicious why this story, like the Helen Thomas story, has suddenly become so prominent….Maybe to create a little sympathy for the banks? Take the focus off the Gaza flotilla? (more…)
Video 1: An interesting interview by Maria Bartiromo of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild on the financial crisis (December 2008). Here’s a quick break down of his main points: (more…)
“Former US secretary of state Colin Powell joined calls for the military to take command of the operation from BP. Powell said the problem was beyond the capacity of BP to solve and the government should bring in “decisive force”. He said: “The military brings organisation, it brings control, it brings assets.”
War has become nation-building and peacetime operations have become warlike…
Everything is a crisis, everything is a war. Everything is about ceding more power to the state, while allowing the “private” sector to dump its costs on the government.
CNN reports on how the oil spill will damage the Gulf economy:
“As efforts to plug the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico continue to fall short, the stakes for the region’s economy grow ever higher. The numbers being batted around when it comes to how much the oil spill will ultimately cost BP and the local Gulf of Mexico economies are huge. $3 billion. $14 billion. One politician put it at over $100 billion.
“A telephone call between a financial adviser in Beverly Hills and a trader in New York was all it took to fleece taxpayers on a water-and-sewer financing deal in West Virginia. The secret conversation was part of a conspiracy stretching across the U.S. by Wall Street banks in the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market.
The call came less than two hours before bids were due for contracts to manage $90 million raised with the sale of West Virginia bonds. On one end of the line was Steven Goldberg, a trader with Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. On the other was Zevi Wolmark, of advisory firm CDR Financial Products Inc. Goldberg arranged to pay a kickback to CDR to land the deal, according to government records filed in connection with a U.S. Justice Department indictment of CDR and Wolmark.
West Virginia was just one stop in a nationwide conspiracy in which financial advisers to municipalities colluded with Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Wachovia Corp. and 11 other banks.
Meat claimed as invention by Monsanto
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 11:22
Meat claimed as invention by multinational company of Monsanto
No Patents on Seeds, Press release, 27 April 2010
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=28
*Stop patenting the food chain!
Multinational seed corporations are following a consequent strategy to gain control over basic resources for food production. As recent research shows not only genetically engineered plants, but more and more the conventional breeding of plants gets into the focus of patent monopolies: International patent applications in this sector are skyrocking, having doubled since 2007 till end of 2009.
“Those who escape thought-reform at the end of history may trace our decline back to 1886, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that corporations are legal persons whose life, liberty and property are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Ratified to protect freed slaves, it took railroad-company lawyers less than two decades to turn this amendment into a loophole. By 1904, corporations controlled four-fifths of the nation’s industrial production. Today transnationals control the world’s cultural and economic production as well, and generate most of its pollution.
A bill sponsored by Ron Paul and Alan Grayson to thoroughly audit the Fed, passed the House. However in a brazen move that ought to offend the sensibilities of every citizen, the Fed is lobbying Senate members to water down the bill so that it is meaningless.
“Larry Summers, dear reader, is part of the problem. There is always an undeniable connection between banking, the elite world of ivory tower Ivy League academia, the government and Wall Street. Summers, who was president of Harvard University until 2006, is former Treasury Secretary of the United States under Bill Clinton, where he worked with now regulators Gary Gensler, Timothy Geithner and Robert Rubin. The last year at Harvard Summers got a $1,000,000 interest only mortgage from Harvard, on top of a $580 thousand salary, which included $30 thousand for benefits and $143 thousand in expense reimbursements–whatever those are…over $11K a month. While at Harvard, he oversaw their endowment, recommending interest rate swap derivatives. Pushed endowment money into a toxic hedge fund Old Lane Partners from Rubin’s Citigroup…Harvard ultimately lost $9.9 billion from its endowment, and at Summers urging, Harvard invested its cash in its exotic investments…losing another $1.8 billion.
Next time there’s a natural disaster and you think the government should “do its share,” “help out” or be compassionate, remember this:
“The United Nations has quietly upped this year’s peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.
on an expanded force of some 12,675 soldiers and police, plus some 479 international staffers, 669 international contract personnel, and 1,300 local workers, just for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010.
Some $495.8 million goes for salaries, benefits, hazard pay, mandatory R&R allowances and upkeep for the peacekeepers and their international staff support. Only about $33.9 million, or 4.6 percent, of that salary total is going to what the U.N. calls “national staff” attached to the peacekeeping effort.”
[NoteI: I mentioned Engdahl's piece about Soros and Rothschild earlier, with the disclaimer that EIR is a Larouche outfit often labeled conspiracist and anti-Semitic, but nonetheless acknowledged to have produced good research. This piece, as I found it on the net, is not extensively sourced, which is why I've not previously linked it. However, having recently found old newspaper articles substantiating at least a part of the material, I'm going ahead and posting it.
Note II: Soros has a variety of interesting business associations. He has ties with Jim Rogers, through the Quantum Fund, which Rogers left to form his own group; with Rees-Mogg, the British journalist and Agora associate/writer; and with James Goldsmith, the Anglo-French financier, who was at one time Rees-Mogg's primary financial backer. But, Goldsmith, a speculator and corporate raider in the 1980s, was vehemently opposed to GATT and the drive to globalize in teh 1990s, which seems to rather complicate the economic hit-man narrative. Rogers' pronouncements, as much as I've followed them, often directly contradict Soros' public statements.
Thus, in my opinion, while there could well be collusion at work among some (or even all) of these entities, from the record, at least, the situation is much muddier. For instance, if you look at what Goldsmith has to say about globalization in the 1990s, he is anti-agribusiness, anti-nuclear power, and anti-GATT. That diverges sharply from Engdahl's general premise, which is best exemplified in the shock-doctrine advocated by Soros in Russia, via economist Jeffrey Sachs (the best account of which is by journalist Ann Williamson, who testified on the matter to Congress).
The truth is, many people advocate many kinds of things from ideology. That ideology is often shared by their business associates, since people with shared ideologies usually end up working in the same place. That doesn't automatically mean they are all working hand-in-glove, or even know each other more than superficially. Even the joint ownership of a fund or corporation, unless it is over a long period of time, does not have to imply that the owners are all in agreement with each other's financial goals. That said, there are suggestive connections noted in this piece that are relevant both to the debt crisis in Europe and to the ongoing manipulation of the markets, which is why I want to link the piece, despite the problems with it that I've noted.
Here's an excerpt relevant to the situation in Poland:
"Poland: In late 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the "reform" communist government of Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders of the then-illegal Solidarnosc trade union organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting, Soros unveiled his "plan" for Poland: The communists must let Solidarnosc take over the government, so as to gain the confidence of the population. Then, said Soros, the state must act to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits, and burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once this were done, Soros promised that he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come into Poland, as prospective buyers of the privatized state enterprises. A recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility Huta Warsawa. According to steel experts, this modern complex would cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago, the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!.
Soros recruited his friend, Harvard University economist Jeffery Sachs, who had previously advised the Bolivian government in economic policy, leading to the takeover of that nation's economy by the cocaine trade. To further his plan in Poland, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, the official sponsor of Sach's work in Poland in 1989-90.
Soros boasts, "I established close personal contact with Walesa's chief adviser, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by [President Gen Wojciech] Jaruzelski, the head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He worked closely with the eminence gris of Polish shock therapy, Witold Trzeciakowski, a shadow adviser to Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with Balcerowicz, the man who would first impose Sach’s shock therapy on Poland. Soros says when Walesa was elected President, that “largely because of western pressure, Walesa retained Balcerowicz as minister.” Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by a cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.
Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason, he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government, to help deal with the unrest. Through the Batory Foundation, Soros coopted key media opinion makers such as Adam Michnik, and through cooperation with the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable to Soros’s shock therapy, and hostile to all critics.
Russia and the Community of Independent States (CIS): Soros headed a delegation to Russia, where he had worked together with Raisa Gorbachova since the late 1980s, to establish the Cultural Initiative Foundation. As with his other “charitable foundations,” this was a tax-free vehicle for Soros and his influential Western friends to enter the top policymaking levels of the country, and for tiny sums of scarce hard currency, buy up important political and intellectual figures. After a false start under Mikhail Gorbachov in 1988-91, Soros shifted to the new Yeltsin circle. It was Soros who introduced Jeffery Sachs and shock therapy into Russia, in late 1991. Soros describes his effort: “I started mobilizing a group of economists to take to the Soviet Union (July 1990). Professor Jeffery Sachs, with whom I had worked in Poland, was ready and eager to participate. He suggested a number of other participants: Romano Prodi from Italy; David Finch, a retired official from the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. I wanted to include Stanley Fischer and Jacob Frenkel, heads of research of the World Bank and IMF, respectively; Larry Summers from Harvard and Michael Bruno of the Central Bank of Israel.”
Since Jan. 2, 1992, shock therapy has introduced chaos and hyperinflation into Russia. Irreplaceable groups from advanced scientific research institutes have fled in pursuit of jobs in the West. Yegor Gaidar and the Yeltsin government imposed draconian cuts in state spending to industry and agriculture, even though the entire economy was state-owned. A goal of a zero deficit budget within three months was announced. Credit to industry was ended, and enterprises piled up astronomical debts, as inflation of the ruble went out of control.
The friends of Soros lost no time in capitalizing on this situation. Marc Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto western industrial markets last year, causing a 30% collapse in the price of the metal, as western industry had no way to compete. There was such an outflow of aluminum last year from Russia, that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the supply of most West Siberian crude oil to western markets. Rich’s companies have been under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993.
Another Soros silent partner who has moved in to exploit the chaos in the former Soviet Union, is Shaul Eisenberg. Eisenberg, reportedly with a letter of introduction from then-European Bank chief Jacques Attali, managed to secure an exclusive concession for textiles and other trade in Uzbekistan. When Uzbek officials confirmed defrauding of the government by Eisenberg, his concessions were summarily abrogated. The incident has reportedly caused a major loss for Israeli Mossad strategic interests throughout the Central Asian republics.
Soros has extensive influence in Hungary. When nationalist opposition parliamentarian Istvan Csurka tried to protest what was being done to ruin the Hungarian economy, under the policies of Soros and friends, Csurka was labeled an “anti-Semite,” and in June 1993, he was forced out of the governing Democratic Forum, as a result of pressure from Soros-linked circles in Hungary and abroad, including Soros’s close friend, U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos.”
“When they were first introduced during the early days of the New Deal, farm subsidies were intended to stabilize prices in order to offset the extraordinary low prices brought on by over-production and by the Great Depression; to keep farmers on their farms and in their homes.
Today, it would be fair to say that farm subsidies, like Wall Street bailouts, flow to those who need them the least.
In Thieves in High Places, Jim Hightower provides the classic example — billionaire stockbroker Charles R. Schwab; the proud owner of Casa de Patos, “1,500 acres of picturesque wetlands in Northern California.” Schwab grows rice on the land, not for harvesting purposes but because the rice attracts ducks. Schwab is one of those rich folks who likes to invite friends and clients to go duck hunting. (Careful you don’t invite Dick Cheney, Mr. Schwab.)
So Schwab has no intent to harvest the rice, but that doesn’t prevent this man with an estimated $4.7 billion net worth from collecting $500,000/year in federal farm subsidies because he does not market the rice.
Hightower laments, “Sadly, it’s legal, and it’s a fine upstanding example of what George [W. Bush] and his base like to call ‘entrepreneurship.’”
Update: Antiwar has a good piece about Dr. Lani Kass, Senior Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the US Air Force General Norton A. Schwartz, who reached the rank of Major in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) before rising to her present highly sensitive position at the Pentagon. Dr. Kass is also rumored to be an unofficial adviser to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Middle East Policy.
“There are indications that Dr. Kass is a major player in shaping US security policy. She has been described as a “key participant” in the development of the national strategy for combating terrorism, as well as the national military strategic plan for the Global War on Terrorism. In September 2007, The Times of London reported that she was a leading participant in “Project CHECKMATE, a “highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with ‘fighting the next war’ as tensions rise with Iran” that was “quietly established” by the US Air Force in June 2007 as a “successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign.”
Also per The Times, CHECKMATE “consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defense and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.” Its director Brigadier-General Lawrence A. Stutzriem and Kass reported directly to General Michael Moseley, at the time chief of staff of the Air Force. The Times cited Defense sources saying, “detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years.” Regarding Iran operations, Kass was quoted as saying “We can defeat Iran, but are Americans willing to pay the price?”
“Leaving aside the legal issues involved, one does wonder at America’s insistence that Iran remain nuke-free. Back in the 1950s, America participated in a regime change in Iran and there is considerable evidence that America might have destabilized Iran again in the late 1970s. And despite mistranslations, Iran has never directly threatened Israel with nuclear weapons – even if it had them. Israel on the other hand is said to have up to 400 nuclear missiles or more, though Israel has never confirmed their existence.
States, in fact, usually do not commit suicide. The idea that a nuclear Iran would suddenly start lobbing nukes at Israel strikes us as preposterous. Even if Israel did not strike back, the US has enough firepower to turn all of Iran into molten slag. The regime would not survive the first missile. But none of this seems to matter. The US is the de facto policeman of the new global “Power Elite” order. It is harrying nations around the world into falling in line with the US position that so long as there is any hint of a possibility that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, Iran ought to be severely boycotted, its economy squeezed and its businesses barred.
It is a serious situation. Boycotts are not inevitably a prelude to war, but they are often destabilizing and can well be a cynical prelude to action. In this case, we believe that certain US leaders seem to want to ratchet up the pressure on Iran to a point that is positively dangerous. Why would the US put world peace at risk over an atomic program that has not yet been proven to exist?”
Why?
Here is one answer: “The Zionist Power Configuration” (James Petras). (Note: The tone of this is shriller than necessary, but because it is a systematic and superbly documented critique that I can’t really find any where else, and because of Lieberman’s new, extremely dangerous call for war in Iran at a time of maximum global fragility (and with the very suspicious downing of the Polish plane in the background), I am going to post it anyway.
And here is more on the IL:
PY TRADE: How Israel’s Lobby Undermines America’s Economy by Grant F. Smith
Foreword by Michael Scheuer, former chief, CIA Bin Laden unit Large Cover Image
Buy now at:
Praise for Spy Trade:
“This terrific historical expose ought to be required background reading for those FBI agents assigned to investigate foreign espionage and public corruption matters. For many reasons, such cases are amongst the most challenging to investigate and prosecute, but are made even harder when undue political pressures enter into the picture. FBI officials responsible for setting investigative priorities and allocating resources would also do well therefore to read Spy Trade so they are aware of the historical linkage between Israel’s ‘Uzi diplomacy’ arms dealing, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the Jonathan Pollard spy incident with AIPAC’s nefarious ‘lobbying’ activities.” Coleen Rowley, former FBI agent and 2002 Time Magazine “Person of the Year.”
“Grant F. Smith’s excellent, deeply disturbing book..is a welcome addition to a growing scholarly literature.” Michael Scheuer, former senior CIA analyst and author of “Imperial Hubris”
“Like political parties, lobbies are groups of citizens with shared interests, an important part of a functioning democracy. When they have enormous power, however, and especially if their activities remain almost completely hidden, lobbies can be dangerous.
Meticulously detailed in this riveting addition to his earlier exposes, Grant Smith reveals yet another facet of the extent to which the pro-Israel Lobby is beyond dangerous, and has become a serious threat to a broad range of American ideals, objectives and interests abroad, as well as here at home. This book contains many highly disturbing, documented revelations. Read it.” Ambassador Edward L. Peck, former Chief of Mission in Iraq and Former Deputy Director, Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism, Reagan White House
“This book presents formidable and dangerous new evidence of spying by Israel and the corrosive long term influence of its lobby on US governance.” Paul Findley, member of Congress from 1961 to 1983 and author of three books on the US-Israeli relationship, including the Washington Post bestseller They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby
“Grant F. Smith is without peer as an archival scholar of the history of the Zionist power configuration operating in tandem inside and outside of the US government. His meticulous research on the long-term operations of AIPAC in shaping US Middle East policy provides the best contemporary framework for understanding our involvement in Middle East wars. He shows how American foreign policy in the Middle East follows Israel’s agenda and documents the enormous cost to our Treasury and economy as well as the loss of American lives. This is a book that should be read by all citizens who are concerned about the aggressive manipulation of our media and political institutions to enhance Israel’s power and further its privileged position in the Middle East.”James Petras, Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York
About the Book
Israel and its American lobby have committed audacious but generally unknown crimes against the United States. Government secrecy across the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice and Pentagon long kept files about Israeli espionage, weapons smuggling and covert operations on American soil classified…until now.
Spy Trade begins on the trail of a vast smuggler network funneling stolen and illegally purchased surplus WWII arms to Jewish fighters in Palestine. When the FBI threatened to crack down–a clandestine summit meeting yielded minor convictions for small time operators–but not the financial masterminds behind the scheme. This germ of immunity soon flowered into a full scale assault on American industry, the electoral system, national defense secrets and rule of law itself.
Spy Trade probes Israel lobby smuggling operations diverting uranium from the US to Israel’s Dimona nuclear weapons facility. The US Department Justice battled mightily to regulate two key enablers–the Jewish Agency and American Zionist Council–as Israeli foreign agents in the 1960s. But when the effort failed it generated a massive counterstrike.
Israel lobby campaign finance violations unleashed a network of coordinated stealth political action committees that intimidated American politicians and made a “pro-Israel” outlook and voting record requirements for staying in government. A new legal battle to regulate the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a political action committee–this time launched by concerned citizens–began two decades ago but has not yet been resolved.
Spy Trade alsoreveals the long term impact of a newly declassified “third scandal” that began in the 1980s. In the midst of both the Iran-Contra affair and Jonathan Pollard espionage incident AIPAC and the Israeli embassy conducted a spectacular clandestine operation against American industries and workers. It has so far cost the US economy $71 billion and a hundred thousand jobs each year by shutting down or diverting US exports. Trade privileges obtained by Israel under the treaty not only permit financing illegal settlement construction with proceeds from diamonds sold in the US. The US pharmaceutical industry faces an unrelenting onslaught against its capacity to innovate and protect its intellectual property.
Spy Trade is much more than a groundbreaking dissection of the tactics Israel and its American lobby repeatedly use to evade justice. The book also provides stunningly simple strategies for ending criminal immunity and subversion of law enforcement that may someday restore American governance.
“SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday charged Goldman Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product related to subprime mortgages.
The SEC alleged in a lawsuit that Goldman /quotes/comstock/13*!gs/quotes/nls/gs (GS158.38, -25.89, -14.05%) structured and marketed a collateralized debt obligation that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. However, it failed to disclose the role that a major hedge fund, Paulson & Co., played in the portfolio selection process as well as the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.”
This is likely to start a sell-off in the financial sector as a whole (down 3.1%) and possibly the much waited next leg down of the great correction that began in 2007-08.
Michael Roston points out the obvious. The amount in question in the Abacus deal is $15 million bucks, which is chump change.
Point two. No one’s saying anything about John Paulson, who made $1 billion out of it.
[Or, to take another instance, what about the Greek government, which is also getting bailed out....by tax-payers of another country? No culpability for the governments who get into these kinds of deals?]
You’ll also notice, as I blogged earlier, that George Soros, another speculator, has also called for the IB’s to be broken up (using the same argument, “too big to fail means too big to exist” - something also pushed by David Einhorn and the left-liberals). Now, I can see the sense in the “too big to fail, too big to exist” mantra, especially, if it had been used against the banks before they helped themselves to tax-payer money. But I wonder why it’s being repeated now, after the fact….and not then..
I didn’t hear these same critics of size pipe up at that crucial time.
“In forwarding Starr’s email to the SEC, former Lehman General Auditor Beth Rudofker wrote: “I phoned you earlier to review and pass on some recent rumor activity and information that is concerning to us.”
In June, Rudofker sent another email to lawyers at the SEC, pointing out additional “rumors” about Lehman that she said “continue to be destructive.” In her long email to the SEC, she said: “We have been able to prevent 3 stories containing these specific rumors that were set to run.”
Also included in the documents is a back-and-forth email exchange between Einhorn and Callan, in which Callan accused him of being “very disingenuous.” Callan said she would not have talked to Einhorn if she knew he was going to make a speech criticizing the firm’s finances.
“I can only feel that you set me up and you will now cherry pick what you like out of the conversation to your thesis,” she wrote in an May 19, 2008 email.
Einhorn defended himself in a lengthy response, saying that Callan knew Greenlight was “short” the stock when she reached out to talk to him.
“You had no reason to expect that our discussion was confidential in any way,” Einhorn wrote in response. “In fact, you knew that I do not want to be restricted in trading the stock and I did not request any information that you would not provide to any other investor who asked.”
A few days later, Einhorn gave another speech blasting the email exchange.
A spokesman for Einhorn declined to comment on Wednesday evening.
For his part, Starr now says, “obviously I was wrong” about Lehman. But he isn’t backing down on his criticism of Einhorn.
“I still stand by those words,” said Starr, who noted that his fund has $50 million under management. “I think that manipulating the market and running a high publicity business is just not appropriate behavior and disruptive to free and open markets.”
My Comment:
Goldstein is the excellent Reuters reporter whose story on Steven Cohen was reportedly spiked…
Sir James Michael Goldsmith, Anglo-French financier and corporate raider of the 1980s, is most infamous for taking over Goodyear Tires and restructuring it, thereby putting its many employees out of work.
In this deeply prophetic interview with Charlie Rose in 1994 he discusses his book about globalization, The Trap, and displays a more humane side of his complex intelligence.
In the earlier part of the interview (not shown here), Goldsmith gets into a heated debate with Clinton economic honcho Laura Tyson over the benefits of NAFTA and GATT in which Tyson comes off as both naive and uninformed.
In another part,Goldsmith calls Indian physicist and environmental activist Vandana Shiva “remarkable” and asks why it is that global “free” trade, supposedly so beneficial to developing countries, was protested widely and vigorously by huge numbers of people in India.
Take away points from the interview:
*This (globalization) is the establishment against the rest of society
*I am for big business until it devours society
*Big business loves total access to unlimited give-away labor
*In every developing nation you have a handful of people who control everything, the oligarchs
*This (globalization) is the poor in rich countries subsidizing the rich in the poor countries (Lila: I’d add that the poor in poor countries are also subsidizing the rich in rich countries)
*Free trade within homogeneous regions is to be preferred to global trade
(Lila: This coincides with something I’ve advocated for a while, on the principle of subsidiarity)
*The European parliament is a force for pseudo-democratic institutions
*It’s already fixed by the two main parties, the Christian Democrats and the Socialists
*The people have a right to vote on the single most important economic decision of their life times
*Here in the USA we’ve had no debate on it (GATT) while we’ve had a huge debate about NAFTA which was a pimple
*GATT is going through because business wants it
*It’s a fix here (the US), as it is in Europe
*We’ve allowed instruments that are supposed to serve us to become our masters
*GATT is an example of how an economic doctrine is going to destabilize our society
*Nuclear is another example. Here in Europe, we’ve not been allowed to discuss this disastrous form of energy, disastrous in terms both of economics and in terms of security
*Corporate agriculture is a third example of how we are destroying our societies
*The ruling machinery of government power in Europe is imposing this (GATT) without a debate
Mark Thatcher, son of the former UK PM, seems to have been dogged with accusations of financial impropriety. I bring him up, because of a comment on this blog about his direct involvement in an international conspiracy to cover up the manipulation of precious metals that was apparently outed in 2002 in the UK, but was covered up. In researching the comment, I began with some background on Mark Thatcher.
“But hit controversy in 1984 when the Observer alleged that he benefited from his mother’s position when a large construction deal in Oman was awarded to a building firm, Cementation, with which he was involved, after Mrs Thatcher visited the tiny Gulf state. The accusations were never proven.
Further controversy dogged him through his friendship with the Middle East businessman Wafic Said - a quiet-spoken Syrian with close links with Saudi royalty.
Among other business ventures in the 1980s, he was involved in several large-scale arms deals, most notably a £20bn contract between British Aerospace and Saudi Arabia.
Although rumours of impropriety have dogged his business career, he largely disappeared off Fleet Street’s radar after moving to the US.
But it is recorded that his wealth grew to the point where he spent periods as a tax exile in Switzerland.
In the 1990s he helped secure the multimillion pound contract for his mother’s Downing Street memoirs, but after the failure of a security alarm business in the US and a prosecution for tax evasion, Mark, his wife and their two children moved again - this time to South Africa.
Three years after the move to Cape Town, in 1998, he was investigated by South African police over a money-lending business to police officers. He counter-claimed that officers working for him as agents had defrauded him and the investigation was eventually dropped.
He returned to the UK last July for the funeral of his father, Sir Denis, a former oil businessman, who died aged 88. He inherited his father’s hereditary baronetcy to become Sir Mark.
Sir Mark, who was known as “Thickie Mork” among other nicknames at Harrow and who has been criticised for his lack of charm, was once described by the Financial Times as “a sort of Harrovian Arthur Daley with a famous Mum”.
A devoted Lady Thatcher, however, has always had faith in him. “Mark could sell snow to the Eskimos, and sand to the Arabs,” she is reported to have said.
His notoriety was not welcomed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher’s former press secretary.
Asked by Sir Mark how he could best help his mother win the 1987 general election, Ingham reportedly replied: “Leave the country.”
“It’s something like out of a James Bond movie. What are the odds that my testimony gets blotted out from live coverage and then our whistleblower and wife get hit by a car the next day? … The gold scandal story is larger than life to begin with. Now throw this spooky stuff on top of it. Veteran Cafe (Le Metropole Cafe, Murphy’s website) members will recall that in the early part of this century what happened to me during a six week period …
My car was stolen and then found on a nearby highway one day after the insurance company paid me off. There was no damage to the car, money left in the console, and a cashmere sweater in the back seat.
My web site was hacked and somebody sent out a very goofy email supposedly from me, but it was not me.
Coming out of a restaurant/night spot less than two blocks from where I live, somebody jumped out from behind a wall and sucker-punched me with brass knuckles. I was out cold and thought my jaw was broken.
Nothing like this has happened before or since.
Daily Bell: Do you think, this time, that the CFTC must take all this seriously.
Bill Murphy: Outside of Bart, it appears none of them want to go there. GATA is like their worst nightmare because they are like everyone else … kowtowing to the rich and powerful. However, a firestorm is growing about what GATA has to say, partially ignited by the Andrew Maguire revelations. I suspect we are finally going to receive some mainstream press in the months ahead, which will be like shining a light on Dracula.
Daily Bell: Why hasn’t it already?
Bill Murphy: The relationship between a government agency like the SEC and the CFTC is insidious. Nobody wants to rock the boat. Heck a number of these people at these agencies end up working on Wall Street, or interact business-wise in some other manner. The Chairman of the CFTC is a Goldman Sachs alumni. That about says it all.”
Mark Mitchell comments on the CFTC hearings and the manipulation of trading of gold and silver derivatives (read IOUs):
“Maguire added: “What’s going to happen, if you’re an Asian trader, or a non-Western trader, who has no loyalty, or doesn’t care about homeland security or anything else, who says, now wait a minute, if I can establish in my mind that there is 100 ounces of paper gold, paper silver for example, for each ounce of real silver, than I have a naked short situation here that I can squeeze and they can go on the spot market which is basically a foreign exchange transaction, short dollar, long silver to any amount they want – billions, trillions — whatever they want, and they can take this market, squeeze this market, and blow it up…”
In other words, the problem isn’t just that criminal naked short sellers manipulate the metals market downwards. It is that they have created a condition where a foreign entity can merely demand delivery of real metal to induce a massive “squeeze” that sends the price of metals skyrocketing, putting huge downward pressure on the dollar. Meanwhile, says Maguire, with prices rising, “for 100 customers who show up there is only one guy who is going to get his gold or silver and there’s 99 who will be disappointed, so without any new money coming into the market, just asking for that gold and silver will create a default.”
This would be a point, except…except..
1. This kind of fraudulent activity in the markets in the West is going to be seen by most foreigners as a direct act of financial aggression against them, not just domestic market participants. You can’t admit that your entire market system is rigged in favor of US and European banks, and then expect that the rest of the world is just going to stand there and not retaliate in some way…with justification.
Turnabout is fair play. Defense is not offense.
2. I doubt that Chinese, Saudis or any other foreigners are interested in squeezing the dollar, since they are the primary holders of dollars. In international markets, the dollar is still the reserve currency and most people save in it. Nor is the American middle class, loyal or disloyal, going to want a weaker dollar. They earn their money in dollars. The only people likely to attack the dollar are speculators, who will do it because they see a gain to be made from it. And the people most likely to do it successfully are the same people who are involved in manipulating it in the first place...the corrupt bankers and financiers who’ve got the most to gain in this and the least to lose.
Nothing that Paulson, Greenspan, Geithner, Summers, or Bernanke have been doing adds up to anything like a “strong dollar” policy. They’ve done everything but shout “bail” to dollar holders.
A January 29, 2002 piece in the Los Angeles Times suggests that 25% of the defense budget is “missing in action.” Have you ever wondered about the financing of blackops (here and abroad), bribery of public officials (here and abroad), and arms sales without Congressional approval?
“On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy,” he said.
He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.
“In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death,” he said.
Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11– the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.
Just last week President Bush announced, “my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending.”
More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.
“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.
$2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.
“We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency’s balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.
“The director looked at me and said ‘Why do you care about this stuff?’ It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job,” said Minnery.
He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.
“They have to cover it up,” he said. “That’s where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can’t do the job.”
The Pentagon’s Inspector General “partially substantiated” several of Minnery’s allegations but could not prove officials tried “to manipulate the financial statements.”
Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the “accounting games.” He’s still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.
“Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year,” he said.
Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy’s 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976.
In his opinion, “With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers.”
Is it permitted to wonder if there wasn’t also deliberate siphoning off of funds for illegitimate purposes…
Gold War I - The “London Gold Pool” - 1961 to 1968
By the beginning of the 1960s, the $US 35 = 1 oz. Gold ratio was becoming more and more difficult to sustain. Gold demand was rising and U.S. Gold reserves were falling, both as a result of the ever increasing trade deficits which the U.S. continued to run with the rest of the world. Shortly after President Kennedy was Inaugurated in January 1961, and to combat this situation, newly-appointed Undersecretary of the Treasury Robert Roosa suggested that the U.S. and Europe should pool their Gold resources to prevent the private market price for Gold from exceeding the mandated rate of $US 35 per ounce. Acting on this suggestion, the Central Banks of the U.S., Britain, West Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg set up the “London Gold Pool” in early 1961.
The Pool came unstuck when the French, under Charles de Gaulle, reneged and began to send the Dollars earned by exporting to the U.S. back and demanding Gold rather than Treasury debt paper in return. Under the terms of the Bretton Woods Agreement signed in 1944, France was legally entitled to do this. The drain on U.S. Gold became acute, and the London Gold Pool folded in April 1968. But the demand for U.S. Gold did not abate.
By the end of the 1960s, the U.S. faced the stark choice of eliminating their trade deficits or revaluing the Dollar downwards against Gold to reflect the actual situation. President Nixon decided to do neither. Instead, he repudiated the international obligation of the U.S. to redeem its Dollar in Gold just as President Roosevelt had repudiated the domestic obligation in 1933. On August 15, 1971, Mr Nixon closed the “Gold Window”. The last link between Gold and the Dollar was gone. The result was inevitable. In February 1973, the world’s currencies “floated”. By the end of 1974, Gold had soared from $35 to $195 an ounce.
Gold War II - The IMF/U.S. Treasury Gold Auctions - 1975 to 1979
On January 1, 1975, after 42 years, it again became “legal” for individual Americans to own Gold. Anticipating the demand, the U.S. Treasury in particular and many other Central Banks sold large quantities of Gold, taking large paper profits in the process. This had two results. It depressed the price of Gold, which fell to $US 103 in eighteen months. More important by far, it “burned” large numbers of small individual investors.
But this “pre-emptive strike” against the Gold price did not solve the imbalances inherent in the floating currency regime. As the Gold price began to recover from its August 1976 low, the (US-controlled) IMF along with the Treasury itself, began a series of Gold auctions in an attempt to hold down the price through official means. But the problem of yet another free fall in the international value of the Dollar got in the way. Between January and October of 1978, the Dollar lost fully 25% of its value against a basket of the currencies of its major trading partners. By early 1979, due to this precipitous fall, the demand for Gold was overwhelming the amount that the IMF/Treasury dared supply, and the Gold auctions came to an end.
Gold regained its ($195) December 1974 level by July 1978. It then pressed on to new highs, hitting $250 in February 1979 and $300 in July. Also in July, Paul Volcker was appointed as Fed Chairman by a desperate Jimmy Carter. Gold continued to surge, hitting $400 in October. While this was happening, Mr Volcker was attending a conference in Belgrade. There the assessment was made that the global financial system was on the verge of collapse. When Mr Volcker returned to the U.S. from Belgrade, he took a momentous step. He announced that the Fed was switching its policy from controlling interest rates to controlling the money supply.
This new Fed policy took some time to have effect. In the meantime, Gold soared from $381 on Nov. 1, 1979 to $850 on Jan. 21, 1980. The public, who had been burned in 1975, were late on the scene. The great burst of public Gold buying came in the four weeks between Christmas 1979 and the Jan 21, 1980 high. As in 1975, they were “burned” again.
The Paper Era Begins
In early 1980, Mr Volcker’s new Fed policy began to bite. U.S. interest rates began to skyrocket. As they rose, the Dollar first slowed its descent, then stopped falling, and then began to rise. Both the public and the investment community which had stampeded into Gold was lured back into paper by this huge rise in interest rates - and by the prospect of a higher U.S. Dollar. The threat of financial meltdown was averted, but at a cost. The U.S. Prime rate hit 20% in April 1980 and stayed there (with a brief dive in mid-1980) until the end of 1981. There was a rush out of Gold and back to Dollars.
Once interest rates began to come down, in early/mid 1982, the choice of where to put the Dollars faced investors once more. The initial solution was just as it had been in the 1970s. The Dow took off - rising from 776 to almost 1100 between mid August 1982 and late January 1983. Gold started earlier and took off even harder - rising from $296 in late June 1982 to $510 at the end of January 1983.
That’s where the similarity to the 1970s ended. Gold fell $105 in the last four trading days of February 1983. As it fell, the Dow broke above the 1100 point level for the first time. The long bull market in stocks, and the long stagnation of Gold, had begun…..”
If anyone claims that looking at gender and the way it inflects culture is inherently collectivist, I’d say they need to define collectivism more accurately. The way libertarians define it now, it’s more a term of abuse than a credible unit of analysis, unless it’s qualified pretty heavily.
There is a body of evidence that males are over-represented in highly aggressive behaviors of certain kinds. That isn’t an argument that men are “less moral” or that women are “more moral.” Not at all. For instance, women predominate in certain other kinds of crimes. In studies of child-killing/infanticide, women killers are often represented more heavily when considering certain age groups. Why? Perhaps because children are weaker than women physically and because women spend more time around them and usually have primary care of them. On the other hand, there are fewer female serial killers than male.
The richest financiers in the world are males. That’s a fact. Males are heavily over-represented in the financial industry and it’s a very male-dominated culture. There are complex reasons for that.
But they’re irrelevant to this post.
Do women benefit from welfare-state programs and set-asides and does that affect voting patterns, consumer culture, tax policy, and welfare policy? I’d say, with some caveats, probably yes.
[But conversely, men might benefit from crony capitalism on Wall Street and defense boondoggles, and indirectly, through set-asides from women that benefits families].
But, again, that doesn’t have much to do with this post…
For all I know, some of these financiers were pushed into reckless behavior because their wives were shopaholics or suing them for everything they had.
But, once again, that’s not this post.
So, this isn’t gender bigotry. It’s simply one way of looking at the influence of our own collectivist tendencies (masculinity as it’s constructed, as well as masculinity as a biological reality) on Wall Street culture.
Original Post
Deal Journaltracks down another outsider who spotted Wall Street’s corrupt practices ahead of the pros. Turns out she’s a woman too. There’s something about estrogen that doesn’t lend itself to mega financial swindles. We’re waiting for the Harvard thesis on the gender behind Wall Street’s agenda.
I hate to come to this conclusion, but a lot of the hot-air, recklessness, ego, hype, aggression, and cut-throat competition really does sound like the product of a culture that conflates masculinity with viciousness and braggadocio. Paulson, Weill, Rubin, Dimon…no women in the top sharks. But when you look at whistle-blowers and expose writers, women stand out: Ann Williamson, Padma Desai (both on the Russian crisis) Lucy Komisar, Meredith Whitney, Janet Tavakoli….
“Deal Journal has yet to read “The Big Short,” Michael Lewis’s yarn on the financial crisis that hit stores today. We did, however, read his acknowledgments, where Lewis praises “A.K. Barnett-Hart, a Harvard undergraduate who had just written a thesis about the market for subprime mortgage-backed CDOs that remains more interesting than any single piece of Wall Street research on the subject.”
“Barnett-Hart’s interest in CDOs stemmed from a summer job at an investment bank in the summer of 2008 between junior and senior years. During a rotation on the mortgage securitization desk, she noticed everyone was in a complete panic. “These CDOs had contaminated everything,” she said. “The stock market was collapsing and these securities were affecting the broader economy. At that moment I became obsessed and decided I wanted to write about the financial crisis.”
Back at Harvard, against the backdrop of the financial system’s near-total collapse, Barnett-Hart approached professors with an idea of writing a thesis about CDOs and their role in the crisis. “Everyone discouraged me because they said I’d never be able to find the data,” she said. “I was urged to do something more narrow, more focused, more knowable. That made me more determined.”
She emailed scores of Harvard alumni. One pointed her toward LehmanLive, a comprehensive database on CDOs. She received scores of other data leads. She began putting together charts and visuals, holding off on analysis until she began to see patterns–how Merrill Lynch and Citigroup were the top originators, how collateral became heavily concentrated in subprime mortgages and other CDOs, how the credit ratings procedures were flawed, etc.
“If you just randomly start regressing everything, you can end up doing an unlimited amount of regressions,” she said, rolling her eyes. She says nearly all the work was in the research; once completed, she jammed out the paper in a couple of weeks.”
More here about the young lady whose research probably played a big part in Michael Lewis’ new book, “The Big Short.”
[At least, Lewis acknowledged the research. That puts him several rungs above most celebrity authors].
Meanwhile, I really like that a violinist was involved in this. My own father was a very gifted amateur violinist and Perlman, Zukerman, Oistrakh, Elman, Kreisler, Menuhin and many others defined my childhood.
Perhaps a lifetime of being immersed in real virtuosity and creativity left Barnett-Hart immune to the glamor of the phony maestros of Wall Street …
Zerohedge notes the tightening of capital controls in the hiring incentives act (HIRE) passed on March 18 by the Obama administration. A more sober summary of the changes introduced can actually be found at Lexology. Salient points from Lexology’s summary:
1. Withholding Tax on Payments to Foreign Financial Institutions, Trusts and Corporations. Effective January 1, 2013, the HIRE Act essentially forces foreign financial institutions, trusts, and corporations to choose between either agreeing to provide the IRS with information about their U.S. account holders, grantors and owners, or subjecting themselves to a 30% withholding tax on almost any payment they receive from a U.S. payor. The rules applicable to foreign financial institutions differ from those that apply to foreign trusts and corporations……….
….In general, “withholdable payments” to an FFI are subject to the 30% withholding tax unless the FFI enters into an agreement with the Treasury Secretary requiring the FFI to:
Obtain sufficient information from every holder of every account maintained by the FFI to determine whether the account is a United States account.
Comply with the verification and due diligence procedures that the IRS and U.S. Treasury may require regarding identification of United States accounts.
Provide annual reports on each United States account maintained by the FFI, which must include:
The name, address, and TIN of each account holder which is a specified U.S. person and, in the case of any account holder which is a U.S.-owned foreign entity, the name, address, and TIN of each substantial U.S. owner of such entity;
The account number;
The account balance or value; and
Except as provided by the Treasury Secretary, the gross receipts and gross withdrawals or payments from the account.
Deduct and withhold a tax equal to 30% of any “passthru” payment by the FFI to either a “recalcitrant account holder,” which is a U.S. account holder who withholds information from the FFI, or another FFI that does not meet the requirements necessary to avoid the 30% withholding tax.
Comply with requests by the Treasury Secretary for additional information about any United States account held by the FFI.
If foreign law would prevent the required reporting on United States accounts, attempt to get a valid waiver, if one is available under the applicable foreign law, from the account holder, and close the account if a waiver is not obtained within a reasonable period of time…………..
Foreign Entities that are not Foreign Financial Institutions. The new Code Section 1472 also requires 30% withholding on withholdable payments made to nonfinancial foreign entities, unless the withholding agent is provided with certification either (1) that the foreign entity has no substantial U.S. owners or (2) that identifies the name, address, and TIN of each substantial U.S. owner.
Payments to corporations whose stock is regularly traded on an established securities market or of (Lila: correction, “to”) an expanded affiliated group of such corporations, to entities organized under the laws of a U.S. possession and owned entirely by bona fide residents of that U.S. possession, to foreign governments and central banks, and to international organizations are not subject to 30% withholding under Code Section 1472.
[Lila: File under Crikey, What Does This Gobbledygook Mean?]
2. Required Disclosure by Individuals of Foreign Financial Accounts, Increased Penalties, and Extension of Statute of Limitations.The HIRE Act requires individual taxpayers who have an interest in a “specified foreign financial asset” to attach a statement to their income tax return if the aggregate value of all such assets during any year is greater than $50,000………
Required Disclosure. The taxpayer must disclose: In the case of any account, the name and address of the financial institution in which such account is maintained and the number of such account.
In the case of any stock or security, the name and address of the issuer and such information as is necessary to identify the class or issue of which such stock or security is a part.
In the case of any other instrument, contract, or interest, such information as is necessary to identify such instrument, contract, or interest, and the names and addresses of all issuers and counterparties with respect to such instrument, contract or interest.
The maximum value of the asset during the taxable year.
Penalties. There are new penalties for both the failure to disclose a foreign financial account and for understatements of tax attributable to undisclosed foreign financial assets.
The HIRE Act imposes a $10,000 penalty for failure to furnish the required information when due. If the taxpayer fails to correct such failure for more than 90 days after receiving notice of the failure, an additional $10,000 penalty is imposed for each 30-day period (or fraction thereof) during which the failure continues after the expiration of the 90-day period following the notice, up to a maximum penalty of $50,000.
In addition, the HIRE Act increases the penalty on of any portion of an underpayment of tax that is attributable to any undisclosed foreign financial asset understatement from 20% of the understatement to 40% of the understatement.
Extended Statute of Limitations for Undisclosed Foreign Accounts. The HIRE Act extends the statute of limitations for audits of certain unreported income from a foreign financial account from three years to six years.
3. Repeal of Foreign Exceptions to Registered Bond Requirement. The HIRE Act denies an interest deduction for interest on any unregistered bond (typically these will be bearer bonds), effective for bonds issued after second anniversary of the date of enactment.
4. PFIC Reporting. In addition to the reporting already required from shareholders of a passive foreign investment company (PFIC), effective as of March 18, 2010 the HIRE Act requires that each United States person who is a shareholder of a PFIC file an annual report containing such information as the Secretary may require. A foreign corporation that generates passive income (typically interest and/or dividends) is classified as a PFIC if (a) 75% or more of the corporation’s gross income is passive income for purposes of the CFC rules or (b) 50% or more of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce, or are held for the production of, passive income.
5. Electronic Reporting by Financial Institution Withholding Agents. The HIRE Act authorizes the IRS to impose electronic reporting requirements on financial institutions that are withholding agents, even if the institution files less than 250 information returns (the current threshold).
6. Foreign Trust Changes. The HIRE Act makes a number of changes in the rules governing foreign trusts. A transferor to a foreign trust that has a U.S. beneficiary is treated as owner for U.S. tax purposes of the portion of the trust payable to or accumulated for the benefit of a U.S. beneficiary. The HIRE Act provides that an amount is treated as being accumulated for the benefit of a U.S. beneficiary even if the U.S. person is only a contingent beneficiary or if any person has the discretion to distribute from the trust to any person unless the trust specifically identifies the class of permitted beneficiaries and none of the members of the class are U.S. persons.
Loans to a U.S. person or allowing a U.S. person to use trust property are also treated as payments to or accumulations for the benefit of a U.S. person unless the U.S. person repays the loan at a market rate of interest within a reasonable period of time or pays fair market value for the use of the property.
The HIRE Act also requires that any person who is taxable as the owner of a foreign trust must provide such information about the trust as the IRS may require. Penalties for failure to comply with the foreign trust reporting requirements were also increased, effective for returns required to be filed after December 31, 2009.
7. Taxation of Dividend Equivalents. The HIRE Act provides that dividend equivalents used in lieu of dividends to avoid 30% withholding on FDAP income, such as securities lending transactions, sales-repurchase agreements, and notional principal contracts, are treated as U.S.-source dividends for U.S. tax purposes………..”
My Comment:
The Zerohedge headline is rather alarmist, but on closer inspection, despite the dreadful sneakiness of sticking this into some apparently minor stimulus legislation, the controls are only a continuation of a trend already well under way.
The 30% withholding for refusal to disclose US account holder information is pretty high and so are the new penalties, and I’ll post on what I find out about them, but the disclosure rules are already in effect.
Most of this seems to be part of the administration’s attempt to go after off-shore business accounts suspected of money-laundering, tax-evasion, or criminal activity.
The proximate causes of the financial crisis lie in the off-shore and re-insurance racket. And the Obama administration is determined to end banking secrecy in order to end that. I can sympathize, because indeed multinational corporations do siphon off most of their profits through shell accounts in tax-havens, paying little or nothing to the jurisdictions in which they actually work and use public services. Meanwhile, the havens have become festering centers of crime, drugs, and arms sales, and also the home of penny-stock fraud , as well as of naked short-selling scams.
The European Union Bank, chartered in Antigua in the Caribbean, for example, which boasted of being the first online bank, and which offered secrecy to account holders, was chartered as a subsidiary of Menatep, a large Russian bank, notorious for involvement with organized crime, as this Washington Post piece by Douglas Farah in 1996 noted.
The outfit Tax Justice.net is a global effort to deal with this huge relatively unrecognized problem, initiated by veteran off-shore investigator Lucy Komisar. It seeks banking transparency and an end to the off-shore racket.
This is a laudable goal. And so far as exposure of the crimes and corruptions of these havens help us understand poverty, development, and the impact of globalization, neo-liberalism, and various tax and regulatory regimes, I’m sympathetic.
But, beyond that, I’m wary of the methods and underlying premise. Strengthening the government regulatory and enforcement apparatus has more potential for abuse than use, this late in the crony capitalist game. There’s a much simpler and more libertarian approach to the underlying problems. And that is to reduce income taxes to the lowest level compatible with paying incurred obligations. A simple flat tax should do it.
Roads, for instance, are largely used..and damaged…by commercial trucks. Yet, these trucks pay far less than they ought, because of the lobbying of their trade associations. Fix these sorts of leakages and then cut income taxes and taxes on investment and job-creating activities, as illustrated in this WSJ piece on people moving to low income tax states. Then go back to sound money and a market interest rate.
You’ll get rid of the incentives for corruption, encourage small businesses to compete more easily, and keep big business onshore. But that’s unlikely to happen any time soon….
Instead, we’re going to have deeper infringements on privacy.
We already knew that private bank accounts were a thing of the past for most ordinary people. Not for the very rich, of course. But we already knew that too..
It remains to be seen whether the new controls will change that.
Bill Murphy, chairman of The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) reports that on March 23,2010, GATA director, Adrian Douglas, was contacted by a London metals trader, Andrew Maguire, who had been told directly by JP Morgan traders how they manipulate the precious metals (PM) markets on non farm payroll data release, COMEX contracts rollover, and similar recurring occasions, to make money.
Maguire had previously contacted the enforcement division of the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) to report this. On February 3, 2010, he gave a two-day advance warning of PM manipulation on the release of the non-farm payroll data on February 5 that took place as predicted.
Turns out Tony Blair had his hand in the oil jar, while he was talking up the Iraq war….and after. The Daily Mail (UK) reports:
Last night Tory MP Douglas Carswell said of Mr Blair’s links to UI Energy Corporation: ‘This doesn’t just look bad, it stinks.
‘It seems that the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been in the pay of a very big foreign oil corporation and we have been kept in the dark about it.
‘Even now we do not know what he was paid or what the company got out of it. We need that information now.
“This is revolving door politics at its worst. It’s not as if Mr Blair has even stepped back from politics, because he is still politically active in the Middle East.
‘I’m afraid I have no confidence at all in the committee that vets these appointments. It’s no good telling us these deals may be commercially sensitive - we are talking about the appointment of our former Prime Minister and the public interest, rather than any commercial interests, must come first.’
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: ‘These revelations show that our former Prime Minister is for sale - he is driven by making as much money as possible.
‘I think many people will find it deeply insensitive that he is apparently cashing in on his contacts from the Iraq war to make money for himself.’
“The committee said yesterday that Mr Blair had taken a paid job advising a consortium of investors led by UI Energy in August 2008. The exact nature of the deal is unknown, but UI Energy is one of the biggest investors in Iraq’s oil-rich Kurdistan region, which became semi-autonomous in the wake of the Iraq war.
“Mr Blair’s fee has not been disclosed but is likely to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
“The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisers, who include the former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and several prominent American politicians.
“Mr Blair successfully persuaded the committee that the appointment was ‘market sensitive’ and could not be made public.”
“Banks weren’t the only ones giving big bonuses in the boom years before the worst financial crisis in generations. The government also was handing out millions of dollars to bank regulators, rewarding “superior” work even as an avalanche of risky mortgages helped create the meltdown.
The payments, detailed in payroll data released to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, are the latest evidence of the government’s false sense of security during the go-go days of the financial boom. Just as bank executives got bonuses despite taking on dangerous amounts of risk, regulators got taxpayer-funded bonuses despite missing or ignoring signs that the system was on the verge of a meltdown.
The bonuses were part of a reward program little known outside the government. Some government regulators got tens of thousands of dollars in perks, boosting their salaries by almost 25 percent. Often, though, rewards amounted to just a few hundred dollars for employees who came up with good ideas.
During the 2003-06 boom, the three agencies that supervise most U.S. banks — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — gave out at least $19 million in bonuses, records show.
Nearly all that money was spent recognizing “superior” performance. The largest share, more than $8.4 million, went to financial examiners, those employees and managers who scrutinize internal bank documents and sound the first alarms. Analysts, auditors, economists and criminal investigators also got awards.
After the meltdown, the government’s internal investigators surveyed the wreckage of nearly 200 failed banks and repeatedly found that those regulators had not done enough…”
My Comment
How to react to this? Weep….tear your hair out?…..roll on the floor laughing….throw up?
A bit of all.
The salient points:
1. Giving bonuses/incentives for “superior performance” doesn’t work, either in the public or so-called private sector (pseudo-private). The next time anyone makes that argument, rub this article in their nose.
2. Sacking is the key. Every regulator who didn’t sound the alarm over the last decade needs to be demoted and/or sacked. At the very least, the department gets a 25% cut. Or better yet, throw out all the “financial examiners.” Obviously, the job means zip. Hire a team of snake-charmers, dancing bears, or g-stringed pole-dancers……you’d at least get a laugh for your money.
3. The only way to get any real information out of the government is through a Freedom of Information Act request.
4. “Regulatory capture” - the corruption of the government by the people it’s supposed to be regulating - is clearly only one part of the problem. The more intractable problem is bureaucratic empire-building. You don’t need other people to corrupt government officials. They carry the germ themselves, because they aren’t accountable to the market for excesses and mistakes.
5. The underlying problem is the artificial boom. It pushed prices of everything sky high and gave everyone a false sense of prosperity. Naturally, the idiots broke out the champagne and started pinning gold medals for genius on their chests.
6. The mob likes flattery. The boom flattered everyone…
“The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether heavyweight hedge funds including Soros Fund Management, SAC, Greenlight Capital and Paulson & Co. aggressively shorted the euro in recent weeks to destabilise it, the WSJ reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.
According to the paper, the department has asked hedge funds to retain trading records and electronic communications relating to the EU currency which needless to say has come under strong selling pressure as a result of the Greek debt crisis. The euro has lost more than 10% since November. It currently trades at $1.3609….”
I blogged a few days ago about David Einhorn’s holdings, noting his anti-Euro trade; I also noted that without the raids against Allied and Lehman and without his late-in-the day piling onto gold, Einhorn’s record really isn’t as impressive as all the hype about his abilities would lead you to believe.
From CNN, via Lew Rockwell, the latest Federal incentives for snitching and snooping on your fellow citizen:
“In 2006, the IRS really started cracking down on big time cheaters and introduced a new whistle-blower program, in which informants are paid a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 30% of the amount owed.
But there’s a catch: In order to collect a reward, the taxes, penalties and interest in dispute must add up to at least $2 million. And if the suspected tax evader is an individual, his or her annual gross income must exceed $200,000.
So far, the new incentives have been effective. The IRS has received tips from about 476 informants identifying 1,246 taxpayers in fiscal year 2008, the first full year the program was implemented………
Who snitches?: In this program, the most common informants tend to be dissatisfied middle-ranking employees in big companies, said Tim Gagnon, an academic specialist of accounting at Northeastern University……..
Stephen Whitlock, director of the IRS Whistleblower Office, said that informants have had some connection to the taxpayer but they are not always close acquaintances. They have typically been employees, investors or business associates.
He also said many claims are for substantially more than the $2 million threshold and involve businesses or very wealthy individuals.”
My Comment:
In other words, what you have is the IRS incentivizing class-warfare. By dangling a chunk of cash in front of their noses, the government encourages employees to act against their own economic interest on the basis of a non-existent public good.
Non-existent?
Well, yes. Since the government is using its tax revenues mostly to pay off its own friends, to fatten the banks and financiers, loot the tax-payer, murder foreign nationals, and generally mismanage the country, the public interest (in so far as we can ascertain one) may well be better served by not paying taxes.
Tax cheats, while clearly not heroes from a moral standpoint, are also not the villains they’re often made out to be.
The villains are those who constantly demand higher and higher taxes and destroy the productive capacity of this country in pursuit of hubristic and vain schemes that have done nothing but turned a nation built on free enterprise into one enslaved by political patronage…
Tax snitches, as I said, don’t even serve their own economic self-interest. Sure, they get their one-off reward for snitching. But they’ve effectively ended any chance of their being hired by anyone…unless they manage to evade detection.
Any taxes an employer pays to the government must inevitably be passed on to employees and customers. That’s as ineluctable an economic law as any.
Ergo, pay taxes and the Feds get the money….don’t pay and the economy, the customer, or employees eventually get it.
An employee who plumps for snitching is obviously not only treacherous and disloyal as a human being, he’s also an economic fat-head.
Madame Speaker, I would like to enter into the record the following letter from Professor Robert D. Auerbach, a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. This letter provides additional information regarding remarks I made at yesterday’s Financial Services Committee Humphrey-Hawkins hearing, remarks which Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke categorized as “bizarre.”
I thank Congressman Ron Paul for bringing to the public’s attention the Federal Reserve coverup of the source of the Watergate burglars’ source of funding and the defective audit by the Federal Reserve of the bank that transferred $5.5 billion from the U.S. government to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Congressman Paul directed these comments to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the House Financial Services Hearing February 24, 2010. I question Chairman Bernanke’s dismissive response.
BERNANKE: “Well, Congressman, these specific allegations you’ve made I think are absolutely bizarre, and I have absolutely no knowledge of anything remotely like what you just described.”
The evidence Congressman Ron Paul mentioned is well documented in my recent book, Deception and Abuse at the Fed (University of Texas Press: 2008). The head of the Federal Reserve bureaucracy should become familiar with its dismal practices.
First, consider the Fed’s coverup of the source of the $6300 in hundred dollar bills found on the Watergate burglars when they were arrested at approximately 2:30 A.M. on June 17, 1972 after they had broken into the Watergate offices of the Democratic Party. Five days after the break-in, June 22, 1972, at a board of directors’ meeting of officials at the Philadelphia Fed Bank, it was recorded in the minutes [shown on page 23 of my book] that false or misleading information had been provided to a reporter from the Washington Post about the $6,300. Bob Woodward told me he thought he was the Washington Post reporter who had made the phone inquiry. The reporter “had called to verify a rumor that these bills were stolen from this Bank” according to the Philadelphia Fed minutes. The Philadelphia Fed Bank had informed the Board on June 20 that the notes were “shipped from the Reserve Bank to Girard Trust Company in Philadelphia on April 3, 1972.” The Washington Post was incorrectly informed of “thefts but told they involved old bills that were ready for destruction.”
The Federal Reserve under the chairmanship of Author Burns not only kept the Fed from getting entangled in the Watergate coverup, which the Fed’s actions had assisted, it allowed false statements about bills the Fed knew were issued by the Philadelphia Fed Bank to stand uncorrected. Blocking information from the Senate and House Banking Committees [letters shown in my book, Chapter 2] and issuing false information during a perilous government crisis imposed huge costs on the public that had insufficient information to hold the Fed officials accountable for what they had withheld from the Congress. Had the deception been discovered the Fed chairmen following Burns may have been forced to rapidly implement some real transparency to restore the Fed’s credibility. That would have reduced or eliminated many of the lies, deceptions, and corrupt practices that are described in my book.
The second subject brought up by Congressman Ron Paul is the exposure of faulty examinations of the Federal Reserve of a foreign bank in Atlanta, Georgia through which $5.5 billion was sent to Saddam Hussein that a Federal Judge found to be part of United States active support for Iraq in the 1980s.
On November 9, 1993, several federal marshals brought a prisoner, Christopher Drogoul, into my office at the Rayburn House Office Building of the U.S. House of Representatives. The marshals removed the manacles. Drogoul took off his jump suit and changed into a shirt, tie, and business suit. He immediately looked like the manager of the Atlanta agency with domestic headquarters in New York City of Banca Nazionale. Drogoul had come to testify about a “scheme prosecutors said he masterminded that funneled $5.5 billion in loans to Iraq’s Hussein through BNL’s Atlanta operation. Some of the loans allegedly were used to build up Iraq’s military and nuclear arsenals in the years preceding the first Gulf War.”[1]
Drogoul’s “‘off book’ BNL-Atlanta funding to Iraq began in 1986 as financing for products under Department of Agriculture programs.”[2] The loans allegedly had been authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Since Drogoul told the committee he was merely a tool in an ambitious scheme by the United States, Italy, Britain and Germany to secretly arm Iraq in their 1980-88 war, the testimony was politically contentious and unproven. He was sentenced in November 1993 to 37 months in prison and he had already served 20 months awaiting his sentencing hearing.
U.S. District Judge Ernest Tidwell found that the United States had actively supported Iraq in the 1980s by providing it with government-guaranteed loans even though it wasn’t creditworthy. The judge said such policies “clearly facilitated criminal conduct.”[3]
Gonzalez was drawn to Drogoul’s answer about the Fed examiner who had visited his Atlanta operation. Gonzalez said that:
“At the November 9, 1993 Banking Committee hearing I asked Christopher Drogoul, the convicted official of the Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro agency branch in Atlanta, Georgia, how the Federal Reserve Bank examiners could miss billions of dollars of illegal loans, most of which ended up in the hands of Hussein.
Mr. Drogoul stated:
“The task of the Fed [bank examiner] was simply to confirm that the State of Georgia audit revealed no major problems. And thus, their audit of BNL usually consisted of a one or two-day review of the state of Georgia’s preliminary results, followed by a cup of espresso in the manager’s office.”
Gonzalez was appalled at the of lack of effective examination of a little storefront bank and also appalled by the gifts exchanged by officers of the New York Federal Reserve and the regulated banks in New York City where the main U.S. office of BNL was located. A description of what followed is in my book.
The Fed voted in 1995 to destroy the source transcripts of its policy making committee that had been sent to National Archives and Records Administration. Chairman Alan Greenspan had the committee vote on this destruction, telling the members: “I am not going to record these votes because we do not have to. There is no legal requirement.” (p. 104 in my book.) Greenspan thus removed any fingerprints on this act of record destruction. Donald Kohn, who is now Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, answered some questions I had sent to Chairman Greenspan about this destruction. Kohn replied in a letter on November 1, 2001 to me at the University of Texas that they had destroyed the source records for 1994, 1995 and 1996, they did not believe it to be illegal and there was no plan to end this practice. That is one reason why the Federal Reserve audit supported by Congressman Ron Paul is needed. The Fed must stop destroying its records.
[1] Marcy Gordon, “Banker Imprisoned in BNL Case Tells Story to House Committee,” The Associated Press, November 9, 1993.
[2] U.S. Newswire: “Former Executive of Atlanta Agency of Italian-Owned Bank Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy”, from U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, June 2, 1992.
[3] Peter Mantius, “Drogoul given 37 months Judge in BNL case also blasts actions of U.S. prosecutors,” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, December 10, 1993, Section A, p. 12.
Robert Auerbach is Professor of Public Affairs at the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. He was an economist with the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee during the tenure of four Federal Reserve Chairmen: Arthur Burns, William Miller, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan. Auerbach also served as an economist in the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Domestic Monetary Affairs during the first year of the Ronald Reagan administration and as a financial economist with the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Auerbach has been a professor of economics at the American University in Washington, D.C. (1976-83), and a professor of economics and finance at the University of California-Riverside (1983-93). He has written numerous articles, and two textbooks in banking and financial markets. He received two Masters degrees in economics, one from the University of Chicago and one from Roosevelt University, where he studied under Abba Lerner, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, where he studied under Milton Friedman.
“When interest rates are low we have conditions for asset bubbles to develop, and they are developing at the moment. The ultimate asset bubble is gold.”
So far so good. Mis-price money (cheap interest rates) and people don’t want to keep their savings in it. They want it in something that isn’t subject to mis-pricing (so they hope) - hence gold.
But then Soros shows how disingenuous he’s being by adding this:
“I think that since the adjustment process to the recession is incomplete, there is a need for additional stimulus. Some countries, like the US and European countries, have plenty of room to increase their deficits. The political resistance to doing so increases the chances of a double dip in the economy in 2011 and after that.”
That is, he’s suggesting running more deficits and keeping the money spigot going, just the thing that’s caused the gold price to rise.
So how do we understand this?
Gold is due for a technical correction, but it’s also probably responding to deflation in the general economy. It’s not going down that fast, because a lot of people are also buying it speculatively.
That’s the tug of war.
Meanwhile, who know what Soros’ holdings are and who knows what his motivations are in making such contradictory statements.
But anyone who takes these sorts of pronouncements as any kind of lead for their own investments/speculations, should be prepared to part fairly soon from their money.
“In the 1980s there was one great stock fraud, which captured the imagination of the American public. That stock fraud involved a chain of electronics stores, which went by the name of “Crazy Eddie.” These stores were founded by Eddie Antar (“Crazy Eddie”) of Brooklyn. “Crazy Eddie” used radio advertising to hype his stores. In the end the retail chain of “Crazy Eddie” went bankrupt; a $300 million fraud.
At the center of this fraud was Sam E. Antar, a cousin of “Crazy Eddie” Antar and the Chief Financial Officer of the “Crazy Eddie” retail chain. Currently Sam E. Antar has publicly stated that he has reformed and is now lecturing, without charge, on the “dangers” of crime. It is strange that Sam E. can afford this largesse because he filed for bankruptcy several years ago. He claims to be supported by the real estate interests of his wife’s family.
Recently he was the focus of an article, “Crazy like a fox,” by Aaron Elstein, which appeared in the October 4, 2009 issue of Crain’s New York Business. Once a felon, always a felon. Yet Elstein referred to Sam Antar as “a former felon.” That alone shows his bias and makes the reader believe that rather than an article the piece is meant to rehabilitate Antar. A felon is someone convicted of a felony. There is no such thing as a former felon.
Elstein also reported: “Mr. Antar admits working for a short-seller before. He did research for Barry Minkow, an investor who served prison time in the 1990s for running a fraudulent carpet cleaning service.” This is like saying “The titanic ran into an ice cube.” There are several understatements in the “article.”
Sam Antar not only worked for Barry Minkow but contributed $250,000 to Minkow’s Fraud Discovery Unit, which supposedly ferrets out false information in filings by publicly listed companies. Antar claims that this $250,000 was his wife’s money. Antar’s wife must be the most generous woman in the world- doling out $250,000 as a gift to her husband’s friend.
Here’s what happened: Minkow finds false information in SEC filings. Minkow then sells the stock short, in hopes that the stock price declines. Minkow then releases his findings. Minkow then buys back the stock after the price has declined. By that very fact alone, Minkow is not an “investor.” Minkow is a short seller.
As the reader can readily determine someone is making money from this arrangement. What’s not stated in the article is that Minkow did not just run “a fraudulent carpet cleaning service.” Minkow’s carpet cleaning business was called ZZZZ Best, a stock fraud that defrauded the American public of hundreds of millions of dollars. Minkow served seven years in federal prison for fraud among other charges.
The article is a “white wash,” a “fix.” Minkow owes the government approximately $16 million and his salary is garnished to pay the amount owed. That is why the payment could not be made out personally to Minkow but to the Fraud Discovery Unit- the money would have been seized.
During his incarceration Minkow converted to Christianity and studied for a Divinity Degree. Currently Minkow is a pastor of a Church. I find it rather amusing when convicted felons turn to God. It has been my experience that once a stock fraud artist- always a stock fraud artist. The money is too good and too easy. That is why the members of Aish Kodesh in Long Island participated in the stock frauds of Maier Lehmann.
Sam E. Antar is a fraudster; as is Barry Minkow.
Both have now found God. Perhaps they have monetarized God.”
Manfredonia, a trader and whistleblower on Wall Street in the 1980s, is now on a campaign to expose corruption on the Street. Please e-mail him tips to Edward@blackstarnews.com
(Via David Kramer LRC blog, January 21, 2010 09:32 PM)
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul, United States House of Representatives Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti, January 21, 2010
I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….”
“As I see it, the bankers are not clueless at all. They understand the game, they understand that the government is going to clean up the mess that they and their friends in Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations have created, and they understand that their antics are going to give them what they always have wanted: a nice, cozy, financial cartel which will provide sweet political contributions for the political classes, bonuses and high pay for themselves, and very little for everyone else.
It turns out that one of the scanner’s strongest advocate, Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Security Czar, stands to gain by the sale of the scanner, via his security consulting outfit, Chertoff Group.
Its 8 members include 3 former senior executives from Homeland Security, 2 from the CIA, 3 from the NSA, 1 from FEMA, and 1 from Goldman Sachs. (more…)
“The latest effort by Goldman to ameliorate the criticism is apparently to require top officers and managers to donate a certain percentage of their compensation to charity. As the NYT noted:
* While the details of the latest charity initiative are still under discussion, the firm’s executives have been looking at expanding their current charitable requirements for months and trying to understand whether such gestures would damp public anger over pay, according to a person familiar with the matter who did not want to be identified because of the delicacy of the pay issue.
Apparently Bear Stearns had done something similar in the past, requiring the top 1000 employees to contribute 4% of their compensation to charity.
The specifics have apparently not yet been determined. Nonetheless, unlike the stock bonuses, the approach effectively reduces the amount of compensation paid to each employee.
Goldman could have considered reducing the amounts paid in compensation and contributed the saved amounts directly to charity. The financial institution in fact added an additional $200 million to its charitable foundation. But making direct contributions would have potentially violated state law.
Corporations are obligated to profit maximize. Some portion of the company’s profits can be donated to charity. Companies may do so, however, only if there is a business benefit. See RMBCA § 3.02(15)(permitting “donations, or do any other act, not inconsistent with law, that furthers the business and affairs of the corporation.”). For modest amounts of contributions, the business benefit can be vague, with enhanced reputation in the community enough of a justification.
For more significant amounts, however, there must be a sufficient nexus to the business of the company. Had Goldman chosen to donate 5% of the amount left aside for compensation, an amount that would probably exceed $1 billion, it would have needed to show some type of meaningful connection to its business. Any failure to do so would likely generate lawsuits from shareholders alleging that the board had failed to engage in the required profit maximization.”
My Comment:
Isn’t this exactly why the more laws you have on the books, the more complicated your problems get?
Think about it. Goldman can’t make direct charitable contributions, because companies are obligated to maximize profits. Why are they obligated to maximize profits?
Because that’s what shareholders are due, per company law.
You might ask whether maximizing profits is always in a company’s best interests, versus building long term value or market share or any number of other things that stake-holders in the company might value more than high returns, but those things don’t count, because that’s how a law works - like a blunt instrument.
And then when managers focus on these short-term horizons and start doing legal (or illegal) tricks to show quick gains on their books, then we need another set of laws to curb them, with incentives running in the opposite direction….
The end result is a muddle of misplaced directives and restrictions that distort the market.
And people criticize the free market!
Corporate finance generalist, investment banker and expert in derivatives, Austin Burrell, sums up last week’s announcement by Attorney-General Eric Holder that there are 5000 pending indictments [sic] arising out of the investigation of fraud in the capital markets:
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate…”
For the rest of the post and the complete list of signatories, see Climate realists.
Copper River Partners (formerly Rocker Partners), the short-selling hedge-fund of David Rocker and Marc Cohodes, and associated entities have settled a case brought against them in 2005 by Patrick Byrne, CEO of embattled internet retailer Overstock, according to The Register.
Note: The suit doesn´t charge naked shorting, but defamation and illegal collusion with research analysts.
Copper River worked with a research firm, Gradient Analytics, that employed well-known financial journalist Herb Greenberg, one of the central figures in the story of the“capture” (corruption) of Wall Street journalists by speculators.Hedge funds stand accused of engaging in illegal collusion with journalists to drive down stock-prices of companies.
Last year, Gradient settled for a figure between $1.5-$2 million and issued an apology. Now comes this further vindication.
Despite the relatively trivial amount won in the Rocker case, $5 million, it´s noteworthy that the settlement does all the things victory in an actual court trial does, without the risk of losing on a technicality.
It also underscores something I´ve been suggesting for a while.
That public interest blogging and journalism alone isn´t enough.
It´s necessary to actually sue or inflict damage of some kind to score victories in these things.
Unfortunately, that´s usually not worth doing for people who aren´t wealthy. Vicariously, however, we “little people” can at least relish the spectacle of the behemoths of finance getting it in the rump.
And this case could prove to be a model for similar lawsuits by other embattled companies.
Also in the works, the SEC, which dropped its investigation of Gradient in 2007, has now turned its sights on Byrne. Given Byrne´s charge of regulatory and media capture, there are some who see this as retaliatory.
For those who think that nationalism is the threat, rather than transnationalism, consider this:
“Bill Gates, America’s richest man with a net worth of $50 billion, has a personal balance sheet larger than the gross domestic product (GDP) of 140 countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia and Uruguay. The Microsoft ( MSFT - news - people ) visionary’s nest egg is just short of the GDP of Tanzania and Burma.”
“Ortega defends the Sandinista Front’s rise to economic power, which started during the 1980s and has accelerated in recent years. Since President Daniel Ortega returned to power, opponents have criticized him and his party for essentially privatizing Venezuelan aid, which last year totaled $457 million, according to the Central Bank.
The Sandinista government has created a series of privately managed companies under the auspicious of the Venezuela-bankrolled Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA). Those companies, which represent more than $530 million in energy contracts, tourism holdings, and cattle farms, are linked to the presidential couple and managed by the family and Sandinista party treasurer, Francisco López…….
Ortega said one can be a self-identified leftist and still be rich….”
In other words Nicaragua’s dear “leaders” are in bed with every rich speculator/developer from abroad. And aid to the country is being siphoned off by them. Great news for the foreign speculators/flippers in the country, making their capital gains and throwing chump change to the kiddies to feed their conscience.
Bad news for ordinary folks who make their living working and producing for the predator class.
Ah, but the new rich are kind too. A few bones are being tossed to the underclasses to buy respectability. The usual formula of crony capitalism - predation + charity.
I steal whatever I can get away with. Then I go to mass and toss your dying children some old toys. I get to be richer than everyone…and better too. I cheat, lie, defraud, and stomp on a thousand faceless individuals to get what I have. Then I toss some tiny part back to some one else and absolve myself.
It’s the Jeffrey Levitt model of absolution. More than twenty years ago, Tony Korneiser wrote a piece in The Washington Post on the man who “stole Baltimore.”
Back then, Kornheiser presciently put his finger on the moral and social attitudes that would metastasize in twenty years to give us the bank that “stole America.”
“Today’s businessmen seem to have hung a sign that says: We Will Lie, Cheat and Steal Unless You Stop Us. They renounce their responsibility to behave ethically, and dare the government regulators to seal off the border.
The sin isn’t cheating, but getting caught. If Jeffrey hadn’t been caught, he and Karol might still be the toasts of Baltimore. They wouldn’t be seen as gluttons, but as eccentrics and damned entitled to be so.
A few years ago Jeffrey hired a public relations firm to retool his image. The trick, and Jeffrey understood it, was philanthropy. Rockefeller, Ford, du Pont, Morgan — they all gave some away. That’s how they bought respectability. Now their great-grandsons are running for president. Instead of being known as a slumlord, which he was before he got into banking, Jeffrey would be known as a philanthropist. Through Jeffrey’s and Karol’s good charitable deeds, the Levitt name would stand for kindness and compassion. What Jeffrey neglected to tell the public relations firm was that it wasn’t his own money he was giving away. “
To “slum-lord,” add con man, gangster, penny-stock pumper, bid-rigger, racketeer, briber, stock fraudster, blackmailer, thief, extortionist, pimp, charlatan - which is what the word financier really stands for today.
“A scientist who advises the Government on swine flu is a paid director of a drugs firm making hundreds of millions of pounds from the pandemic.
Professor Sir Roy Anderson sits on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), a 20-strong task force drawing up the action plan for the virus.
Yet he also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline, the company selling swine flu vaccines and anti-virals to the NHS.”
Note, 25% of that is in the form of shares, so he would directly benefit if the company’s stock were boosted by larger sales. But, apparently, he’s completely unrepentant about it.
There’s more:
During the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, Sir Roy’s advice to Tony Blair led to the culling of more than 6million animals.
The previous year at Oxford University, Sir Roy was at the centre of controversy after claiming a female colleague had slept with her boss before getting a job. He was forced to apologize and pay compensation.
A university inquiry in the wake of the scandal found that he was in breach of rules by failing to disclose his business interests as director and shareholder of International Biomedical and Health Sciences Consortium - an Oxford-based biomedical consultancy, which had awarded grants to his research centre.
Sir Roy was forced to resign, although his career soon recovered. He moved to Imperial College within months, was made the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientist and, last year, took over as Rector of Imperial College, London where he earns up to £400,000 a year.
So. There was at least one mainstream journalist hip to the revered boss of AIG. I take back my general denunciation of the media on this point. Apparently, what was missing was the larger picture…
Well, that’s what bloggers are for. We supply the big picture. We connect the dots…
Here’s a part of the piece:
“Not long after starting a prestigious new job as general counsel at American International Group, 48-year-old E. Michael Joye received an alarming piece of news. AIG, an employee confided, had for years been improperly booking premiums it received for workers’ compensation insurance. If true, it meant that the insurance company was cheating state governments out of tens of millions of dollars used to pay benefits to injured workers.
Joye, a former Navy lieutenant who had left a blue-chip law-firm partnership to join AIG, investigated the matter personally. He soon heard even more shocking news: that AIG chief Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg knew about the practice–and had done nothing to stop it. Greenberg was one of the all-time great American CEOs. Could it really be true?…..
…According to Joye’s notes, one employee even described a meeting about the matter at which Greenberg had asked, “Are we legal?” When an employee responded, “If we were legal, we wouldn’t be in business,” Greenberg “began laughing, and that was the end of it.”
Nonetheless, Joye reported what he had learned in meetings with Greenberg and Thomas Tizzio, then AIG’s president. Then he wrote them a memo that couldn’t have been blunter. AIG’s behavior was “permeated with illegality,” he wrote; these “intentional violations” could produce criminal fraud and racketeering charges and “expose AIG to fines and penalties in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” as well as civil suits producing “astronomical damages awards.” AIG, Joye wrote, needed to end the illegal practices immediately, fire all those involved, report the violations, and make restitution.
After finishing the memo, Joye met with Tizzio. What was Greenberg going to do? Nothing, Tizzio told him, according to Joye’s later account. Greenberg had decided that correcting the problem would be too expensive. (Tizzio declined to comment.) Appalled at the news, Joye tendered his letter of resignation on the spot, packed up his office, and left the building. He had been at AIG for eight months……..
Hank Greenberg, however, did move quickly to deal with the thorny problem of a former general counsel who might publicly accuse him of condoning fraud. Two weeks after Joye quit, Greenberg sent a short note to Jules Kroll, founder of the well-known corporate-intelligence firm, forwarding background material about Joye. ……
Joye’s abrupt parting with AIG was not a case of skittishness brought about by the current spate of investigations into insurance industry accounting. No, Joye left AIG in January 1992, and for 13 years he remained silent about what he had discovered there. …….
But Joye never forgot his glimpse of the way AIG’s CEO did business. Even after retiring to his home near Princeton, N.J., he kept his AIG files. And so, this past spring, after New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer began an investigation into Greenberg’s long-buried secrets, Joye came forward to offer one of them up.”
My Comment
Notice how the universal (and well-merited) emphasis on the wrong-doing of Goldman Sachs, the company, or on AIG, the company, takes the focus off Greenberg. See, for example, this piece by Matt Taibbi, which does just that.
But worrying about AIG, or GS, as companies, at this point - while useful and necessary - is in some ways beside the point. The problem is not any company or organization itself but a network made up of people who use companies like GS or AIG or Citi. They’re the culprits of the financial crisis.
This network communicates outside the formal communication channels usual to business and government. You’re going to get relatively little looking for an email record or phone record — as a smoking gun. Or rather, even if you did find it, it would be secondary.
Take Blankfein’s presence (Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs) at the bail-out pow-wow hosted by Tim Geithner. Outing this gives you a tea-pot dome type scandal, but then what? The scandal can quickly be resolved by disposing of the offender. But that does next to nothing to disrupt the network. The rest of the insiders can always get another member to pick up the slack.
That means that in this game there are bag-holders... and there are players.
Vikram Pandit is, from that perspective, a bag-holder. Franklin Raines is a bag-holder. Bernie Madoff may have been turned into a bag-holder, but he was also a player.
And Hank Greenberg is a player, for sure.
Just my speculation, this Friday afternoon, as winter starts closing up shop in the Southern Cone. It was warm enough today to walk around without a coat. A couple of weeks more and spring will be here…
Recent Comments