LILA RAJIVA: The Mind-Body Politic
Individuals Not Ideologies
-
Rogers Tells Greeks To Go Bust
Rogers gets it right, as usual. From the Wall Street Pit:
“Commodities legend Jim Rogers talks in this Bloomberg interview about Greece’s fiscal problems which needless to say are hardly a new development. According to Rogers, a bankruptcy for Greece would benefit the euro.
“They should let Greece go bankrupt,” said Rogers. “It would be good for the euro. It would be good for Greece. It would be good for everybody. If Greece went bankrupt then everybody would say, boy, the euro is serious, is going to be a sound currency and the euro would go straight up. Is not gonna happen that way, but that’s what should happen.”
Exactly right. Currencies go under because the governments behind them behave imprudently, as Cato’s Dan Mitchell points out.
Robert Wenzel, who has been right on top of the Greek story, writes:
“In fact, a Greek bankruptcy would be the best thing for the euro. It would show that the European monetary union is less subject to political pressures than individual sovereign states, for most assuredly the PIIGS, if they still managed their own moneys right now, would certainly be printing away right now.”
Had the US let the financial industry go under and refused to bail them out, the dollar would immediately have shot up. The decline of the dollar reflects the market’s loss of faith in the US and its reserve currency.
When governments act like genuine market participants - i.e. take their medicine - their currencies strengthen. Greece, acting on its own, showing independence of European bureaucratic constraints or bail-outs, would have to be a positive for the euro, because it indicates an end to the bottomless pit of financial irresponsibility..
Rogers is also right that speculation isn’t the prime mover of these events.
In the Greek case, I understand the notional value of the CDS’s (credit default swaps) involved are not big enough to impact the debt. However, for whatever reason, Rogers avoids talking about the larger issue of fraud in the use of currency swaps, fraud in the original contracts, and fraud in short-attacks, which are quite a different matter from market participants voicing their “opinion.” (the notional value of CDS in relation to debt is apparently not large in this case, though it’s important in other cases, like AIG)
Rogers, like the rest of the financial industry, is thus talking the professional ideology of the financial industry, and you can see all the others - from Mish Shedlock to Zerohedge to Chanos - lining up to defend that ideology.
It’s unfortunate, but it’s also something I feared…that some of the “citizen journalist” sites would corral popular outrage over Goldman Sachs and its allied hedge funds….and then steer that outrage in ways that protect the industry. And that they would finally end in support of the big players, while defusing the original anger into essentially useless diatribes. Meanwhile, those engaged in any action that might actually weaken the powers-that-be would be demonized and marginalized.
That’s seems to be what’s happened. Which is why the call for a ban of CDS contracts strikes me as not (necessarily) terribly useful.
My point is that that while it’s true that CDS’s have been gamed, a ban on them distracts from all the other issues of fraud. CDS’s are sold as if they’re insurance….and they’re used to gamble on price-movements. A player intent on fraud doesn’t need to rely on CDS contracts alone to commit a fraud. Ban CDS contracts, and he will just use another technique. Again, the problem is not the CDS contracts themselves, but the fraud involving them.
To recognize this, you just need to go back a bit. If you rewind twenty-five years, to Milken’s junk-bond innovations, there too what ought to have been an instrument of financing became an instrument of gambling.
Read Michael Lewis’ Liar’s Poker for a brilliant account from a former insider. Yet, today, it is Lewis, with Einhorn, who’s arguing to ban CDS’s. You’d think Lewis of all people would know it isn’t the gun that’s the problem, it’s the people who use guns to commit crimes. (Felix Salmon has a good criticism of Lewis on CDS’s at Portfolio.com).
Indeed, Lewis himself makes that point in his book:
Quote:
“Junk bonds behave much more like equity, in shares, than old-fashioned corporate bonds…… Therein lies one of the surprisingly well-kept secrets of Milken’s market. Drexel’s research department , because of its close relationships with companies, was privy to raw inside corporate data that somehow never found its way to Salomon Brothers. **When Milken trades junk bonds, he has inside information. Now it is quite illegal to trade in stocks on inside information, as former Drexel client Ivan Boesky has ably demonstrated. But there is no such law regarding bonds*** (My emphasis)
……Not surprisingly, the line between debt and equity, so sharply drawn in the mind of a Salomon bond trader (Equities in Dallas!) becomes blurred in the mind of a Drexel bond trader…” (p. 217)
Lila: Eventually, the flood of money attracted to junk bonds had to find new places to go. From that, sprang the leveraged buy-outs (LBO’s), the corporate raids of the 1980s.
Quote:
“The new and exciting job of invading corporate boardrooms appealed mainly to men of modest experience in business and a great deal of interest in becoming rich. Milken funded the dreams of every corporate raider of note: Ronald Perelman, Boone Pickens, Carl Icahn, Irwin Jacobs, Sir James Goldsmith, Nelson Peltz, Samuel Heyman, Saul Steinberg, and Asher Edelman….” (P. 220)
Lila: Transpose an octave….fast forward twenty-five years…and you could be describing CDS’s…. And just as the problem then was not the junk bonds themselves, but the use made of them (to gamble and raid companies), so too with CDSs.
Of course, the raiders saw themselves as performing a valuable service in cutting out fat from management…and in many cases, that was so. But, killing someone to cure him isn’t usually regarded as the most brilliant of remedies. Why should it be different in the financial industry?
Again, the problem is the actors and the activity, not the instrument. We need to differentiate between them. We also need to differentiate clearly between short-selling (legitimate) and naked short-selling (fraudulent); between speculation (helpful to the markets proportionate to economic activity), versus casino capitalism (extremely game-changing and dangerous where it is now); between investment (socially productive) and gambling (socially destructive); between legal and fraudulent activity.
Now they’re all mashed up and argued fungibly.
People blame either the government..or the speculators, black and white, forgetting that in many cases the speculators ARE the governments…in the sense that they’re in collusion with some of the banks that have their functionaries creating government policies, and have their advocates in the media, influencing public opinion as they wish.
More on this later….
Meanwhile, sift through the opinion-making carefully…looking for a confusion of all the terms I’ve listed. Wherever you find that confusion, be wary. Sometimes the confusion is just honest error. The rest of the time it seems to show an intent to mislead.
Soros, Paulson etc. Under DOJ Probe For Destabilizing Euro
Yes, indeed. One for the good guys!
“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….”
More at the Wall Street Journal.
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.
The Corporate Media: Suffering From Truth Emergency
We have an elite that has a stranglehold on what gets heard through its grip on professional societies and the major print and TV news. Prizes, media attention, peer approval go to very few media outlets. It’s well- known that only reporters and columnists at a handful of papers get serious attention. That’s a truly dangerous state of affairs and we’re suffering the fall-out from it. What makes it even worse is that news itself is more and more swept aside by trashy, sensation-seeking reporting, which leaves the audience with misinformation or simply a great black hole of ignorance.
Mickey Huff and Peter Phillips analyze the “truth emergency” ravaging the corporate media in the West (and to a lesser degree, everywhere):
“Truth Emergency: Keeping the Facts at Bay
The truth comes as conqueror only because we have lost the art of receiving it as guest.
– Rabindranath TagoreWhat are some of these truths, that not knowing them creates a literal state of emergency for human society? Here are two of many possible examples. A 2008 report from The World Bank admitted that in 2005, over three billion people lived on less than $2.50 a day and about forty-four percent of these people survive on less than $1.25. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in urban areas of so-called developing nations. Simple items Americans take for granted like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations, television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possible for billions of people.6
In another ignored but related story, Starvation.net logged the increasing impacts of world hunger and starvation. Over 30,000 people a day (eighty-five percent of children under five) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and starvation. The number of deaths has exceeded three hundred million people over the past forty years. These stories should be alarming headlines, certainly more significant than celebrity tripe and tabloid hype.7
Continuing on the theme of human poverty and its ramifications, farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up four percent from the year before, yet, billions of people go hungry every day. The website Grain.org describes the core reasons for continuing hunger in a recent article “Making a Killing from Hunger.” It turns out that while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control the global food prices and distribution. Starvation is profitable for corporations when demands for food push the prices up. Cargill announced that profits for commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were eighty-six percent above 2007. World food prices grew twenty-two percent from June 2007 to June 2008 and a significant portion of the increase was propelled by the $175 billion invested in commodity futures that speculate on price instead of seeking to feed the hungry. This results in erratic food price spirals, both up and down, with food insecurity remaining widespread.“
My Comment:
Some of this commentary of course paints speculation with too broad a brush. Futures markets can, and do, provide efficient allocation of resources if they function as they should. The problem is not the futures market but the corruption of the market and the constant meddling in it by the state, which blunts the normal checks that the market would otherwise provide.
And again that goes back to public culture and professional standards that have become debased. The deeper question is how they became debased.
Which, of course, leads us to the government’s manipulation of the interest rate. That is where the problem lies.
But meanwhile, where is the media in all this? Providing the context so people can understand what’s going on?
No. It’s rooting around in John Edward’s trash can……
Soros: Gold In Bubble; But Keep Stimulus Going…..
Always nice to see people talk out of both sides of their mouth.
Here is currency speculator George Soros (ex of legendary hedge-fund Quantum) at the World Economic Forum at Davos:
“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.
Adrian Ash: Here Comes Stagflation
The whole inflation-deflation debate has always struck me as misbegotten. People use the terms to mean things so varied that it’s pointless to argue. But such as it is, I’m a firm believer in the deflationary thesis on the macro level… influenced in this by the economist Antal Fekete , and his theory of how capital is destroyed in a fiat money regime.
Nonetheless, I do see consumer prices rising.
In other words, asset prices fall, industry contracts, and unemployment levels stay high, while the stuff on the shelves costs more, insurance and tuition rates climb, and living in general becomes more expensive. (more…)
Hedge Funds: Top Ten Earners in 2007/2008
New York Magazine had a piece in 2007 that sorted the hedge-fund elites into categories like “brainiacs” (like James Simon and Jim Chanos) and “bad boys” (like Daniel Loeb).
The category “Top dogs” (that is, the very best hedgies) includes SAC Capital Advisers/Steven Cohen ($12 b); Cerberus Capital/Stephen Feinberg ($19.5 b); Appaloosa Mgt/David Tepper ($5.3 b); ESL/Eddie Lampert ($18 b); Citadel Investment Group/Kenneth Griffin ($13.5 b); Manhattan/Michael Novogratz ($4.6b).
[Note: the figures were as of 2007].
This is the short list of the managers whom the industry thinks are top dogs, and of these six, one (Feinberg) is directly connected to Drexel Burnham Lambert, convicted junk bond financier Michael Milken’s bank; another (Cohen) is connected indirectly to Milken through Gruntal & Co.; and three are alumni of Goldman Sachs(Tepper, Lampert, Novogratz).
Five out of six and that’s just a cursory examination. I didn’t do anything more than google to get that.
And the financial press thinks there are no Sith Lords?
A more conventional ranking is found below: (more…)
Too Big To Fail And Too Big-Headed To Admit Failing
In the Times of India, Abheek Barman reviews Andrew Sorkin’s “Too Big to Fail,” a blow-by-blow account of the bail-out and makes a couple of insightful observations:
“It’s a tribute to his writing that despite his ball-by-ball narrative Sorkin manages to hold your attention for nearly 550 pages. His character sketches are lean and unjudgemental. Yet, though he doesn’t pass judgement, by the end most of the characters - with the possible exception of Buffet and some of the regulators - come across as distinctly unsavoury.”
Felix Salmon Gets It Right On Short-Selling
Felix Salmon gets it right about short-selling this time round, at Seeking Alpha: (December 31):
“It’s not just short-sellers, either: most financial professionals are essentially parasitical on people who genuinely add value in the real world. Old-fashioned lending is important, and I’d say that stock markets in general also count as a positive financial innovation, since they make it vastly easier for companies to raise equity capital. But in my ideal world, people working for real companies like Kodak would make more money, in general, than people working for more parasitical financial-services companies. The fact that it’s the other way around worries me. While finance may or may not be good at the efficient allocation of capital, it seems to be positively bad when it comes to the efficient allocation of the labor of intelligent and perspicacious individuals.”
Hedge-Fund Pays Naked Shorting Critic Byrne $5 Million
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.
Still to come is Overstock´s suit against 12 prime broker-dealers (including Goldman Sachs), which will go to trial in late 2010. The suit charges an illegal stock market manipulation scheme.
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.
Speculation Drives Metal Prices
Geologist Brent Cook at Mineweb explores the speculative frenzy behind metal prices:
“Now I do not know if Paul’s [Van Eeden] thesis on gold is accurate or not: if it is it could still take many years to play out. Likewise, I do not know how or when the base metal prices will re-equilibrate to the reality of end demand-whatever that is. What is obvious is that gold and now base metals have become speculative investments that in addition to being bought as hedges against inflation and a falling US dollar are the latest get rich quick scheme. The end result is that absent the faith that metals and markets are all headed higher, we here at Exploration Insights are finding it difficult, although not impossible, to find value in junior mining and exploration companies.
Hot money on the other hand is not.
Over the past few months we have witnessed bought-deal equity financings for individual mid- to junior tier gold companies in the 10’s to 100’s of million dollars. These are being bought at nearly the absolute 52-week highs by funds that I know have not looked into the mining, metallurgical, social or political intricacies that make or break a mine. This fearless hot money jumping into the sector worries me. It always precedes a market bubble and correction: sometimes serious, sometimes temporary- sometimes by weeks, sometimes by years.
Adding to the absence of fear and proper due diligence in the market, my recent discussions with corporate financiers confirm that both large and mid-sized gold companies are being offered substantial unsolicited bought-deal financings-no questions asked. At the same time, some of the very same companies being offered the quick money are being hit with heavy selling when a fund manager becomes “concerned” because there has been no news for a couple of weeks or gold backed off $15.
Hand in hand with heavy fund demand for new metals investment ideas most of the major research firms have increased their commodity price assumptions to reflect the “new reality”. The primary advantage afforded by the commodity price revisions is that previously overvalued mining companies can instantly become “Buys”. Recall that the last major upward revisions from many of these same research firms came as the new reality of higher prices set in 2008.
The problem is that greed is driving the market and so any small hiccup or change in sentiment and the hot money tends to bolt. As last year taught us (remember last year?) when the fast money going in is the liquidity, there ain’t no liquidity getting out.
I remain cautious and somewhat concerned by what appears to be hot and fickle money jumping into a sector that is apparently taking its cue from pig farmers”.
Taibbi’s Penson Video..(Correction)
Correction:
(10/12/09, Monday)I should have said “allegedly faked” video. I stand corrected. No weasel words, Mr. Byrne (see Byrne’s comment below).
I often post stories on which I have no comment or opinion one way or other, because I haven’t followed them, but think readers might like to. In my last several posts, in fact, I defended Deepcapture’s, Taibbi’s, and Zerohedge’s work, in spite of occasional alleged or real errors.
But the reason I linked to Wenzel’s blog is because Wenzel’s post is pretty funnily written, and I don’t follow Taibbi, except occasionally. I didn’t like his attacks on David Griffin, where he exposed himself as somewhat ignorant. Taibbi also doesn’t attribute people (apparently others have that complaint too). But arrogance and ignorance in one area don’t equate to being incorrect in another.
I’ll add a separate post with the rather long back and forth between Taibbi and his various critics and defenders. I went by Penson’s dismissal of the video, but I’ve since noted that Penson has some history that is troubling and tends to makes its dismissal less credible.
So what else might be construed as “weasel-worded” in my recent blogging?
Perhaps my rather neutral approach to the Byrne vs. Weiss feud, still going strong. Well, I’m neutral about it - who stalked whom, etc. etc. - because I don’t know the ins and outs of it. I had my own experience of being harassed, and can barely keep up with the details of that, let alone someone else’s stalking experience.
I also don’t know which of the two abuses of the market - “stock pumping and money laundering” (criticized by the Wall Street “captured” media) or “naked-shorting” (criticized by Byrne, Davidson “ “Bob O’Brien,” and many others, including Taibbi) - is the more momentous.
As a libertarian, I think naked-shorting is, but that’s only my opinion. Which is why I’ve been neutral. My sense is both abuses are real and extensive.
Likewise, I really don’t know enough about what the SEC’s investigation of Overstock is about. Could it be punitive?
Quite likely, given all we know about the SEC. But does that mean everything else the SEC does is incorrect? Unlikely.
Does that mean what Byrne wrote about “naked short selling” is incorrect? No.
Final point. I tend not to like shrill personal attacks.
That’s a deferral to civility and complexity, not weasel-wordedness.
ORIGINAL POST:
On Matt Taibbi getting suckered by a “faked” (quotes added for now) naked shorting video:
“Carney is a sharp guy, and he has Taibbi nailed on this one, but, I repeat, naked short selling, like a lot of Wall Street, is a very complex game. Carney in some of his other posts suggests there is nothing wrong with naked short-selling, he is off on that one. Some of it can be justified as simple market maker operations, but some of it is major league abuse by very clever insiders, which is the point Taibbi is taking, but doesn’t have the knowledge to back up properly.
Anyway, once you sit down an analyze the entire naked short selling thing, you realize that the bad naked short selling would go away if the SEC would stop issuing regulations that protect the bad guys. Basic common sense and commercial law would put an end to the bad naked short selling, real fast.
Bad naked short selling exists because there is a power source to manipulate, in this case the SEC, and the bad guys are running circles around the SEC.
What you want to understand naked short sales for yourself? Well pull up a chair, give yourself five hours and read this. It’s a great first step.
But, I tell you, it will be much more fun watching Taibbi attempt to pull the bayonet out of his brain.”
More by Robert Wenzel, at Economic Policy Journal.
Recent Comments