Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
There are no zombie banks, Bernanke says
Nationalization unnecessary, because Fed can force needed changes
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
Last update: 4:05 p.m. EST Feb. 24, 2009
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Despite operating in a regulatory grey zone, the nation's largest banks are not "zombies," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday.
The term "zombie" has become popular to describe a bank that exists but is only alive because of government support. The term was first used to describe Japanese banks during the "lost decade' in the 1990s.
Bernanke said that was not an "accurate description" for top U.S. banks.
"They all have substantial franchise value. They are all lending -- all active. All have substantial international franchises," he said.
Bernanke made the comments during testimony at the Senate Banking Committee.
The top U.S. banks have been hammered by the sudden sharp decline in the value of many of the assets on their books, especially the value of complex mortgage-backed securities.
Just how damaged the banks are remains a mystery, even though the government has pumped billions of dollars into them in return for partial ownership stakes.
The government is going to begin the process Wednesday to uncover exactly how big the "hole" is at the banks and has agreed to provide additional capital to fill the gap.
Just how much capital is needed is also a mystery.
Bernanke said that zombie banks imply that there is no control over the institutions.
"But we're not just giving these institutions capital and letting them do what they want," Bernanke said. "We're going to be very tough on them to make sure that they take whatever drastic steps are necessary to restore them to profitability."
Nationalization would cause more damage than good, he insisted.
Nationalizing the banks would only "destroy the franchise value or create high legal uncertainty," he said.
"We don't need majority ownership to work with the banks - we have very strong supervisory oversight we can work with them now to get them to do whatever is necessary to become profitable again. We don't have to take them over to do that," he said.
But in extensive comments to the Senate Banking Committee, Bernanke did describe a regulatory limbo for these institutions.
Regulators do not have clear authority to shut them down.
"We're following the law. We just can't go shut down a bank ... that meets capital standards," Bernanke said.
And there are no roadmaps for shutting down one of these complex, global institutions down in a "safe way," he said.
Moving to curtail their operations could roil global financial markets. "The implications for market confidence would be enormous," Bernanke said.
Bernanke acknowledged that some banks have become so big that their failure would be catastrophic to the economy.
"There is a-too-big to-fail problem. It is very severe," he said. But now is not the time to stop and ponder what this means. "Right now we're in the middle of a crisis," Bernanke said.
But Bernanke stressed that there was a path out of the thicket. At some point, private capital will be willing to return, he said. That's when we'll know the recovery is just around the corner.
Greg Robb is a senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.
(SNIP)
There are 97 comments
*Uncle Ben waves his hand*
"These aren't the zombies you're looking for"
The Masses in Unison:
"These aren't the zombies we're looking for"
THE FED
Fix banks first, growth will follow: Bernanke
'Black and white' solution starts with stable institutions, Fed chief says
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
Last update: 3:44 p.m. EST Feb. 24, 2009
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Federal Reserve Board chief Ben Bernanke delivered a simple message Tuesday: Fix banks first and economic growth will follow.
"If there is one message that I'd like to leave you with, if we're going to have a strong recovery, it has got to be on the back of a stabilization of the financial system. It is black and white," Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee.
"If we don't stabilize the financial system, we're going to flounder for some time," said the top U.S. central banker.
Appearing before Congress for two days of discussion on the economic outlook, the Fed chairman said the Obama administration was on the right track with the approach it's taken to reviving ailing banks during its first month in office.
While that plan wasn't well received by financial markets, Bernanke said it should work -- given sufficient time.
The Obama plan "has all the major components...of previous successful financial stabilization plans. So I think if it is well executed and forcefully executed, it is our best hope of stabilizing the system," he said.
But what the final expense of the rescue plan will be to taxpayers remains unclear, he conceded, saying: "We don't know what the costs will be."
It will take more time and money to work, he said.
The administration will begin Wednesday a new series of "stress tests" for the nation's major banks. If regulators find they don't have adequate capital, the government could demand a greater ownership stake in the institutions. See full story on bank plan.
Americans are clearly worried about the economy. President Obama is expected to discuss the outlook in a speech later this evening before a joint session of Congress. See full story.
Bank stability stands as the key ingredient for ending the recession, Bernanke said.
Only with the return of some measure of financial stability is there a "reasonable prospect that the current recession will end in 2009 and that 2010 will be a year of recovery," Bernanke said.
'Most securitization markets remain shut, other than that for conforming mortgages, and some financial institutions remain under pressure.'
— Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman
If financial conditions improve, the stimulus package and ultra-low interest rates will support growth and low gasoline prices will support consumer spending.
"If financial conditions improve, the economy will be increasingly supported by fiscal and monetary stimulus, the salutary effects of the steep decline in energy prices since last summer, and the better alignment of business inventories and final sales, as well as the increased availability of credit," Bernanke said.
A full recovery from the severe downturn is not expected for two or three years, Bernanke said.
At the moment, downside risks to the forecast predominate, Bernanke said.
The soft economy and weak financial institutions are still caught in a downward spiral with the potential to wield tremendous "destructive power," he said.
This cycle, known in Fed parlance as an "adverse feedback loop," was one of the worst fears of Fed officials in 2007 and 2008. The fact that it has arrived with such force has officials scrambling for a response.
"To break the adverse feedback loop, it is essential that we continue to complement fiscal stimulus with strong government action to stabilize financial institutions and financial markets," Bernanke said.
The global nature of the recession is another downside risk, Bernanke said. This may drag down U.S. manufacturing and financial markets more than expected, he said.
Student of history
The bulk of Bernanke's remarks were a history lesson of the financial crisis.
The top U.S. central banker said the contraction under way in the last five months is "severe" and has not abated.
The "principle cause" of the recession was the collapse of the global credit boom and the ensuing financial crisis, he said.
The Fed has brought its target interest rates to a historically low range just above zero and has told financial markets that these low rates are likely to remain for some time.
Under Bernanke's leadership, the Fed has launched a series of innovative programs to pump money into frozen credit channels, taking commercial paper and mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions in return for cash.
Bernanke said he's been pleased with the efforts to date, noting that they have "helped to restore a degree of stability" to some markets.
But the programs have not been a panacea, with Bernanke acknowledging that "significant stresses persist in many markets."
"Most securitization markets remain shut, other than that for conforming mortgages, and some financial institutions remain under pressure," Bernanke said.
Markets have been waiting for the Fed to start a new program to prop up markets for consumer and small-business loans. Bernanke did not provide much of an update on this front in his testimony, saying only that the plan would start "soon."
One risk that Bernanke did not dwell on was the prospect of deflation -- commonly defined as a swift, general decline in prices that can wreak economic havoc.
The Fed has given the market a new signal that it would like to target inflation at a 2% rate.
This new clarity should contribute to keeping inflation from falling too low, Bernanke said.
Overall, the policies put in place by Congress and the Fed should contribute to a "gradual resumption" in growth, Bernanke said.
Mum on Treasury buys
Some financial market participants were more interested in one thing Bernanke didn't say.
Bernanke didn't bring up the idea of the Fed to buy longer-term Treasurys. Bernanke has floated the idea in the past as a way to lower the yield curve.
But members of the committee did not let the issue pass.
In answer to a question, Bernanke said that other programs have jumped ahead of the idea of the central bank buying longer-term Treasurys.
"We do have a couple of other things going on right now," Bernanke said, mentioning the Fed's purchases of mortgage-backed-securities and plans to start buying other consumer loans.
But Bernanke said he wants to keep "the option open" to buy Treasurys if it is needed to improve the functioning of private credit markets. "We're not trying to affect the cost of government financing per se," he said.
Analysts said the message is that the idea has moved to the back-burner at the central bank.
U.S. Treasurys and the dollar remain a popular investment choice for foreigners, but this condition should not be taken for granted, Bernanke said.
"It seems, at least for now, the dollar and U.S. debt are still very attractive around the world and there is a lot of demand for holding our Treasurys," Bernanke said.
Everyone understands that the U.S. must get control of its fiscal balance or else foreigners might lose confidence, he said.
Bernanke said he didn't see inflation as a major risk.
"Our view is that, over the next couple of years, if anything, inflation... is going to be lower than normal," Bernanke said. When the economy recovers, it will be important for the Fed to hike rates and unwind its unconventional policy to keep inflation under control.
Greg Robb is a senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.
Copyright © 2009 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved.
American Dream wrote:HOW TO DESTROY A FOX NEWS ANCHOR
PBS Screws Up Report on Financial Crisis
By Danny Schechter, AlterNet. Posted February 21, 2009.
At a time when we need hard-hitting investigations into our financial catastrophe, we are getting superficial reporting -- even on PBS.
Last week, an action thriller move called The International opened nationwide. It is a big-screen shoot 'em up about a bank gone bad. A crime story, involving gun running, buying up debt and conniving with politicians. It seemed timely but was actually a dramatization of a real, if barely remembered, story -- the corruption of that notorious failed bank, BCCI, popularly known as the Bank of Crooks and Criminals.
It was a story that we at Globalvision knew well, because in 1992-93, we produced a strong documentary about that crooked bank shut down by federal authorities, for Frontline, the PBS investigative series.
I didn’t work on the project directed by Rory O’Connor but recall that we worked with independent journalists to investigate its entanglements with public officials and drug cartels. It took about a year to complete.
In that era, the idea that criminality and finance were related was considered a legitimate subject for prime time on PBS. In those years, Frontline welcomed independent journalism, too, not just programs from a small insider clique.
This past week, Frontline was back to reporting on banks with a quickie hour special called "Inside the Meltdown." The subtitle: "How the economy went so bad so fast, and what Bernanke and Paulson didn’t see and weren’t able to fix." To my shock, the Baltimore Sun’s reviewer praised it to the skies, calling it "one of the finest hours of nonfiction TV that I have ever seen in 30 years of writing about the medium."
Gag me with a spoon.
The film had all the hallmarks of the polished format and tony style that has come to embody Frontline productions, Will Lyman’s powerful voice, dramatic if not ominous music, beauty shots of Wall Street at night, limos crisscrossing Washington, faceless men working behind Bloomberg computer screens. It conveyed more a feeling offering any new facts to challenge us. It was more concerned with what government officials did after the meltdown than what the bankers did to cause the crash.
The New York Times was more impressed by another doc, CNBC’s doc House of Cards -- which also named few names or investigated few crimes (even as its host David Faber also appeared on Frontline).
"Oddly enough, the PBS offering is showier and more melodramatic, embellished with the kind of foreboding sound effects and stark black-and-white photographs that are a specialty of Sept. 11 films or accounts on the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis," writes reviewer Allesandra Stanley. "Frontline builds a persuasive case against Mr. Paulson, but relies for the most part on secondary sources to do so: academics and reporters."
But even if the Frontline style was more commercial-looking than the one by a commercial channel, it substance was narrower and its experts never ordinary people like those who watch PBS and/or progressive analysts like those on Bill Moyers' show. Instead, there was a procession of columnists and reporters from the mainstream media whose views are accepted (and acceptable) as the only legitimate sources.
You can watch online (at PBS.org) and see what I mean. There were scores of "names" from elite media like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair and even CNBC. An NPR host from the "Planet Money" show had a sound bite, but as you will see on the Frontline Web site, they are cross-promoting with that program.
The program indicts the interconnected nature of Wall Street firms, but the perspectives in the show showed the interconnected nature of the mainstream media, with Frontline lining up star journalists -- some on target, others just repeating their print stories -- from institutions that were mostly derelict in exposing subprime lending when it was happening and might have been stopped.
Many of those media institutions were complicit in the crisis, spending the boom years running ads from dodgy lenders, bank fraudsters and credit card purveyors. There were no voices from bloggers, no airtime for critics of the financial system, and oddly, no original interviews with the players they were covering like Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke or Tim Geithner. It was mostly B-roll and archive.
No current bankers were interviewed; no new conflicts of interest were exposed. There was no reference to the discriminatory and predatory lending practices that fueled the housing bubble. "Inside the Meltdown" should have been retitled "After the Meltdown." It retold several stories -- on Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and the first bailout -- that had already been covered in detail.
There was no mention of the arrests of Bear Stearns execs for insider trading; no reference to the "put options" by unknown investors that helped bring that bank down. There was no discussion of any debate about whether Lehman Brothers should have been allowed to fail -- or what the major consequences would be. Only Paulson’s weird rationalization of "moral hazard" was cited. Where did Geithner and Bernanke stand? They must have known that by punishing Lehman, the global economy would be dealt a punishing blow given all the "counterparties" to their deals. So much for selective morality.
And on the bailout, there was no examination of why no conditions were placed on capital injections into banks, no hearings allowed, not even full disclosure. Frontline skittered over the surface of these stories but did not advance them. Its big "gotcha" seemed to be the irony of Paulson, pictured only as a free-marketer (when he was also an environmental liberal) forced to become an interventionist. If he was so against government, why did he become Treasury secretary? Duh?
Even the Times, which concluded its review with the familiar, "We are all guilty, everybody did it" mantra, noted the thinness of the reporting: "Mr. (Chris) Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, are the only members of Congress interviewed in the piece, which is a weakness. Many voters hold Republicans and Democrats equally responsible for oversight failures. Frontline holds these politicians up as reliable, unbiased witnesses, but some viewers may feel they don’t deserve that trust."
Frontline once offered original, investigative reporting as an alternative to superficial mainstream reporting. Now it seems to be reformulating and repackaging that reporting. From the front of the line, it’s gone to the back. All the pretty effects and dire narration cannot conceal that. The best place to view the program is on the Web site because of all the other information there.
Unfortunately, at a time when we need hard-hitting investigations into our financial catastrophe, we are getting warmed-over reprises that seem consistent with the larger media failure that has accompanied the financial failure.
Media writer Howard Kurtz said in the Washington Post, "the press may own a share of the financial mess."
"The shaky house of financial cards that has come tumbling down was erected largely in public view: overextended investment banks, risky practices by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, exotic mortgage instruments that became part of a shadow banking system. But while these were conveyed in incremental stories -- and a few whistle-blowing columns -- the business press never conveyed a real sense of alarm until institutions began to collapse."
And not just the business press!
RED ALERT: FX Dislocation In Process
Market Ticker
Karl Denninger
Feb 16, 2009
8:17 CT
I do not know what is going on here, and I don't think I want to.
Someone, apparently someone in Asia, wants dollars. A LOT of dollars. There is a forced-liquidation event underway that is massive, it is against all asset classes and it is spreading.
It originated at approximately 7:15 CT this evening and originated out of Asia somewhere. All of the primary currency crosses got hit at once - Euro, Pound, Yen - all weakened dramatically against the dollar and it is still going on. The Asian stock markets got walloped at the same time in coordinated waves of forced selling.
At the same time the US futures markets got nailed as well, down some six handles on the /ES in a near-vertical drop. While this sounds "not that big" to move these markets in a coordinated fashion like this is a trillion-dollar enterprise - this is not some small company that went bankrupt, or even a large company.
There is no news coverage at the present time identifying the source of this but it is not small and contrary to some reports it is not "automatic selling"; this is forced liquidation.
Folks, if this translates into Eastern Europe where there are severe instabilities already brewing literally everything in the financial world could come apart "all at once."
The worse news is that if this happens Bernanke will have killed us (in the US) by extending those swap lines all over the planet during the last six months. These will become utterly uncollectable and they are massive, in the many hundreds of billions of dollars.
To those who are reading this, I hope if you're in the markets you are prepared for extreme levels of violence. You must expect that the authorities will try to arrest the destruction if they are able, but you must also be prepared for the possibility that we have reached a "critical mass" point beyond which "duck and cover" is the only winning strategy.
Unfortunately.
Europe Unwinding
Posted: Feb 17 2009 By: Jim Sinclair Post Edited: February 17, 2009 at 12:14 am
Dear Friends,
To underscore my statement that "It has hit the fan," please review the following:
Forex failure continues in Poland
Posted by Izabella Kaminska on Feb 16 21:43.
It’s getting bleaker by the minute in Eastern Europe. In case you didn’t catch the latest from the Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, he warned at the weekend how a growing crisis in Eastern Europe could cause nothing less than a total collapse in the West, or as he put it: “If one spark jumps across the euro zone line, we will have global systemic crisis within days.”
To make his point Evans-Pritchard quotes Morgan Stanley’s Stephen Jen on the fact that Eastern Europe has borrowed a total of $1,7oobn abroad. Furthermore about $400bn of that debt has to be rolled over this year - a number equivalent to about a third of the region’s GDP.
As we outlined a couple of weeks ago, the concern is now greatest not for the retail mortgage sector, which practiced the issuance of foreign-currency based mortgages on a grand scale, but for corporates — which it appears practiced the art of derivative forex exposure on an even grander scale.
And so it comes as no surprise on Monday that yet another corporate forex failure has occurred in Poland, this time at Polski koncern Miesny Duda, a Polish meatpacking business. The stock sank to a record low on the news. As Bloomberg reports:
More…
An unwind is taking form right now, this minute, (9:10PM ET) that may or may not be contained by international Central Bank action.
Even if central Europe does not financially implode the world money system today, it is just around the corner.
There are so many risks threatening us now that survival of any monetary status quo is doubtful.
Protect yourself.
It has hit the fan, right now, and all that is thanks to OTC derivative manufacturers and distributors.
Respectfully yours,
Jim
Financial Coup d’Etat
Catherine Austin Fitts
Money & Markets, Mortgage Markets, News & Commentary and The Solari Report
February 2, 2009 at 11:02 pm http://solari.com/blog/?p=2058
In the fall of 2001 I attended a private investment conference in London to give a paper, The Myth of the Rule of Law or How the Money Works: The Destruction of Hamilton Securities Group.
(Article continues below, but here is Link to Myth of the Rule of Law>>http://www.dunwalke.com/gideon/q301.pdf)
The presentation documented my experience with a Washington-Wall Street partnership that had:
Engineered a fraudulent housing and debt bubble;
Illegally shifted vast amounts of capital out of the U.S.;
Used “privitization” as form or piracy - a pretext to move government assets to private investors at below-market prices and then shift private liabilities back to government at no cost to the private liability holder.
Other presenters at the conference included distinguished reporters covering privatization in Eastern Europe and Russia. As the portraits of British ancestors stared down upon us, we listened to story after story of global privatization throughout the 1990s in the Americas, Europe, and Asia.
Slowly, as the pieces fit together, we shared a horrifying epiphany: the banks, corporations and investors acting in each global region were the exact same players. They were a relatively small group that reappeared again and again in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Asia accompanied by the same well-known accounting firms and law firms.
Clearly, there was a global financial coup d’etat underway.
The magnitude of what was happening was overwhelming. In the 1990’s, millions of people in Russia had woken up to find their bank accounts and pension funds simply gone – eradicated by a falling currency or stolen by mobsters who laundered money back into big New York Fed member banks for reinvestment to fuel the debt bubble.
Reports of politicians, government officials, academics, and intelligence agencies facilitating the racketeering and theft were compelling. One lawyer in Russia, living without electricity and growing food to prevent starvation, was quoted as saying, “We are being de-modernized.”Several years earlier, I listened to three peasant women describe the War on Drugs in their respective countries: Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. I asked them, “After they sweep you into camps, who gets your land and at what price?” My question opened a magic door. They poured out how the real economics worked on the War on Drugs, including the stealing of land and government contracts to build housing for the people who are displaced.
At one point, suspicious of my understanding of how this game worked, one of the women said, “You say you have never been to our countries, yet you understand exactly how the money works. How is this so?” I replied that I had served as Assistant Secretary of Housing at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the United States where I oversaw billions of government investment in US communities. Apparently, it worked the same way in their countries as it worked in mine.
I later found out that the government contractor leading the War on Drugs strategy for U.S. aid to Peru, Colombia and Bolivia was the same contractor in charge of knowledge management for HUD enforcement. This Washington-Wall Street game was a global game. The peasant women of Latin America were up against the same financial pirates and business model as the people in South Central Los Angeles, West Philadelphia, Baltimore and the South Bronx.
Later, courageous reporting by Naomi Klein and Greg Palast confirmed in detail that the privitization and economic warfare model I discussed in London had deep roots in Latin America.
We were experiencing a global “heist”: capital was being sucked out of country after country. The presentation I gave in London revealed a piece of the puzzle that was difficult for the audience to fathom. This was not simply happening in the emerging markets. It was happening in America, too.
I described a meeting that had occurred in April 1997, more than four years before that day in London. I had given a presentation to a distinguished group of U.S. pension fund leaders on the extraordinary opportunity to reengineer the U.S. federal budget. I presented our estimate that the prior year’s federal investment in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area had a negative return on investment.
We presented that it was possible to finance places with private equity and reengineer the government investment to a positive return and, as a result, generate significant capital gains. Hence, it was possible to use U.S. pension funds to significantly increase retirees’ retirement security by successfully investing in American communities, small business and farms — all in a manner that would reduce debt, improve skills, and create jobs.
The response from the pension fund investors to this analysis was quite positive until the President of the CalPERS pension fund — the largest in the country — said, “You don’t understand. It’s too late. They have given up on the country. They are moving all the money out in the fall [of 1997]. They are moving it to Asia.”Sure enough, that fall, significant amounts of moneys started leaving the US, including illegally. Over $4 trillion went missing from the US government. No one seemed to notice. Misled into thinking we were in a boom economy by a fraudulent debt bubble engineered with force and intention from the highest levels of the financial system, Americans were engaging in an orgy of consumption that was liquidating the real financial equity we needed urgently to reposition ourselves for the times ahead.
The mood that afternoon in London was quite sober. The question hung in the air, unspoken: once the bubble was over, was the time coming when we, too, would be “de-modernized?” In 2009 — more than [b]seven years later — this is a question that many of us are asking ourselves.
Part II: Rethinking Diversification
Continued below but here is the link to Rethinking Diversification>>http://solari.com/blog/?p=2060
Rethinking Diversification
For our entire lives, most of us have depended on highly centralized systems. Our food comes from a thousand or more miles away. Our savings is shipped into distant financial centers and invested by strangers in enterprises run by strangers. We watch highly scripted news that serves the same spin no matter how many channels we try. We bank at impersonal global banks with criminal records that would make a felon blush and have no idea where our money goes, just that the government guarantees that we will get it back.
Within this centralized system, diversification means having your financial assets deposited into a “one-stop-shop” brokerage account invested in securities representing different global industries, the idea being when one industry is doing poorly, another “countercyclical” industry would be doing well.
But suddenly, we find that we may not be able to trust these centralized systems. Suddenly, traditional portfolio theory no longer addresses our anxiety. This is because we need to shift from diversification within a centralized system to real diversification in a decentralized, possibly “out of control” world.
If you study the investment patterns of families and wealth that has survived through the generations, including through periods of lawlessness and warfare, you come to understand that for those who want to thrive in all economic and political scenarios, diversification has had a far deeper meaning than what is commonly understood in the financial markets today. For the astute strategist, it means not putting all your eggs in one basket in every important aspect of your life. Given what is happening in our world and economy, it’s time to revisit the deeper meaning of diversification.
Diversification means that our assets are invested such that an economic, political, or natural event — particularly a catastrophic event — cannot wipe us out. So, for example, we don’t invest all of our savings in a single financial institution or fund. Investors who lost their life savings in the Madoff scandal were not practicing even the most basic form of financial diversification.
Diversification also means having multiple types of assets and custodians in multiple places. Custodians (i.e., those who hold our assets for us) might be brokerage firms, banks, depositories or our own safe.
Diversification by place means locating our assets in states or countries subject to different legal and political risks. It means denominating our assets in currencies of multiple countries. It means selecting assets subject to different risks of loss due to climate change, weather conditions, social conditions and other uniquely local vicissitudes. Local investment is a great idea, but the people who lived through Katrina can tell you why having all of your eggs in one local basket may not be the best idea.
Diversification means that we don’t have all of our savings in just one type of asset. So we don’t invest in securities only — we also invest in tangibles. If possible, we buy a house without debt, or with debt that can be serviced by one family member’s income, or invest in our home to lower energy and food costs permanently. We also maintain a sufficient inventory of household goods. And it’s a good idea to invest in disaster preparedness if we live in an area that experiences earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes or is prone to power outages.
Having all your money in one currency or one country is pretty risky – a risk many in the US tend to take. Ask your Jewish friends whose parents got out of Germany in time because they had gold coins or family and assets abroad. Gold coins may hold their value if the dollar collapses, but they can also disappear in a burglary or if you forget where you put them. Digital gold may be a great thing, but if the Internet is not reliable where you are, cold cash may be a good thing. Or if your cash is worthless, a stockpile of food, vitamins and liquor can be priceless. However, food, vitamins and liquor are only good when you are bartering with someone who wants them or is close by. Which takes us back to gold coins or digital gold or some other currencies. So you see, there is no magic bullet – just diversification.
Diversification of life risks is an integral part of all matters related to financial capital. Living things are the source of all wealth. That includes you and me.
Diversification means that we invest in our physical and mental well-being. We invest our time in understanding the toxic chemicals, drugs and other influences that increasingly contribute to poor health and cause us to need so much more funding for more drugs and medical treatments to cure what ails us. One of the greatest – and growing — threats to our financial health is physical illness. The notion that corporate stock investments will create security while one saves money eating unhealthy food is contradictory to the principles of building real wealth.
Diversification means that we invest not just in our own human capital but also in the human capital of other members of our family and those around us. In this way, we are not betting on financial assets alone to see us through. We are investing in each other because it is family, friends and communities that help see us through. An active network of mutually-supportive friends and colleagues is important. For those with sufficient capital and skills, financing the farmers and companies we depend on for our daily bread may not provide much of a return — it may, however, ensure that we have healthy, safe food.
Diversification also applies to the work we do. For most people, our labor is our most important source of financial assets. Skill diversity can mean, for example, that you have a number of skills. If one skill goes out of favor, another will give you the ability to be economically useful. If you have a business that fails, you have the ability to start a new business because you have the experience and diversity of skills to make a business run.
The ability to generate income through your own business or practice is invaluable, particularly when the economic environment makes “W-2” employment more difficult to find. If you are an employee and your company closes, if you have taken care to broaden your skill base, your skills can be valuable commodities for other, different types of employers or employers in other industries or places less affected by a downturn. Better yet, you know how to do many things for yourself, thus offsetting lost income with lower expenses. Look at those who are successful in the current environment: what most of them share is a commitment to life-long learning that translates into a multitude of personal and professional skills.
Diversification is not always easy to achieve. The more resources we have, the easier it is to diversify. The fewer resources we have, the more our diversification focuses on building our human capital and community. Interestingly enough, many of the best opportunities before us are those that can happen when people who have a lot of money and people who don’t have money but have a lot of skills become allies in building greater diversification together. Isolation shrinks our options. Opportunities expand as we organize and collaborate effectively. Hence, it is critical to not assume financial capital can provide sufficient diversification alone and remain isolated from our neighbors and family.
One of my goals for the Solari Report is to explore options we have to strengthen and diversify our human and financial capital and to introduce you to leaders who are taking action to help us do so.
February 26, 2009
It's Time to Break Up the Big Banks
The Geithner Put
By MIKE WHITNEY
Timothy Geithner is putting the finishing touches on a plan that will dump $1 trillion of toxic assets onto the US taxpayer. The plan, which goes by the opaque moniker the "Public-Private Investment Fund" (PPIF), is designed to provide lavish incentives to hedge funds and private equity firms to purchase bad assets from failing banks. It is a sweetheart deal that provides government financing and guarantees for illiquid mortgage-backed junk for which there is no active market. As one might expect, the charismatic President Obama has been called in to generate public support for this latest addition to the TARP bailout. In this week's address to Congress he said:
“This administration is moving swiftly and aggressively to restore confidence, and re-start lending.
“We will do so in several ways. First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running."
The Obama administration is clearly afraid to use the shifty Geithner to sell this boondoggle to the American people. Geithner's last performance put the equities markets into a swan-dive.
Details of the plan remain sketchy, but the PPIF will work in concert with the Fed's new lending facility, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, which will start operating in March and will provide up to $1 trillion of financing for buyers of new securities backed by credit card, auto and small-business loans. Geithner's financial rescue "partnership" will also focus on cleaning up banks balance sheets by purging mortgage-backed securities (MBS).
In Monday's New york Times, Paul Krugman summed up the Geithner plan like this:
"Now the administration is talking about a “public-private partnership” to buy troubled assets from the banks, with the government lending money to private investors for that purpose. This would offer investors a one-way bet: if the assets rise in price, investors win; if they fall substantially, investors walk away and leave the government holding the bag. Again, heads they win, tails we lose.
Why not just go ahead and nationalize?"
Why not, indeed, except for the fact that Geithner's and his boss’s main objective is to "keep the banks in private hands" regardless of the cost to the taxpayer. The Treasury Secretary believes that if he presents his plan a "lending program" rather than another trillion dollar freebie from Uncle Sam, he'll have a better chance slipping it by Congress and thereby preserving the present management structure at the banks. Keeping the banking giants intact is "Job 1" at the Treasury.
The PPIF is a way of showering speculators with subsidies to purchase non-performing loans at bargain-basement prices. The Fed is using a similar strategy with the TALF which, according to the New York Times, could easily generate "annual returns of 20 percent or more" for those who borrow from the facility.
From the New York Times:
"Under the program, the Fed will lend to investors who acquire new securities backed by auto loans, credit card balances, student loans and small-business loans at rates ranging from roughly 1.5 percent to 3 percent.
“Depending on the type of security they are borrowing against, investors will be able to borrow 84 percent to 95 percent of the face value of the bonds. Investors would not be liable for any losses beyond the 5 percent to 16 percent equity that they retain in the investment.
“In the initial phase, the Treasury will provide $20 billion and the Fed will provide $180 billion. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last week that the Treasury could increase its commitment to $100 billion to allow the Fed to lend up to $1 trillion."
This is a ripoff, which is why the plan is being concealed behind abstruse acronyms and complex explanations of how the transactions actually work. The only way investors can lose money is if they hold on to the securities after they fall below 16 percent of their original value which, of course, is unlikely, since the buyers can bail out at any time leaving the taxpayer holding the bag. Call it the "Geithner Put", another gift from Uncle Sugar to Wall Street land-sharks.
Geithner thinks that by obfuscating the details of his plan, he'll be able to carry it off with no one the wiser. But he's mistaken. His credibility has already been badly battered by his chronic evasiveness. Now the pundits are blaming him for falling consumer confidence and the plummeting stock market.
It is no surprise that the Fed announced its expansion of the TALF on the same day that Geithner presented his outline for a "public-private partnership". The two plans represent the Obama Team's strategy for "squaring the circle", that is, for keeping the big banks in private hands while purging their balance sheets of worthless assets at the public's expense. Here's how it's presented on the Fed's website:
"Under the TALF, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will provide non-recourse funding to any eligible borrower owning eligible collateral... As the loan is non-recourse, if the borrower does not repay the loan, the New York Fed will enforce its rights in the collateral and sell the collateral to a special purpose vehicle (SPV) established specifically for the purpose of managing such assets... The TALF loan is non-recourse except for breaches of representations, warranties and covenants, as further specified in the MLSA"
Non-recourse funding? In other words, the loans will be like mortgages, where if the homeowner finds that he is underwater, he can just walk away and leave the bank to cover the losses? In this case, it is the taxpayer who will be left taking the loss.
The PPIF is basically the same deal, 90 percent government-funded "no risk" financing offered to the same speculators who just blew up the financial system. It's a scam. The process allows Geithner to avoid assigning a market value to these garbage assets that no one wants. That means that he's planning to pay inflated prices--up to $1 trillion-- to keep the banks happy. Once their balance sheets are scrubbed clean, the banks can begin engineering their next swindle. Meanwhile, the hedge funds and private equity firms will demand refunds for the toxic waste they bought but cannot offload on skeptical investors. Once again, the government will pick up the tab.
Does Geithner really think he can sneak this through?
The markets aren't going to like the idea of recapitalizing the banks through the backdoor. Wall Street will see right through the smoke n' mirrors and hit the "sell" button. If the banks need recapitalizing, they will have to do it the old fashion way. They'll have to restructure their capital, which means that shareholders get the ax, bond holders get a haircut, management gets the door, and the American people become majority shareholders. That's how it works in a free market. When businesses are insolvent; they file for bankruptcy and the debts are written down. Geithner could save us all a lot of trouble by just doing his job and nationalizing them now.
The Baseline Scenario's Simon Johnson put it perfectly when he said:
"Above all, we need to encourage or, most likely, force the large insolvent banks to break up. Their political power needs to be broken, and the only way to do that is to pull apart their economic empires. It doesn’t have to be done immediately, but it needs to be a clearly stated goal and metric for the entire reprivatization process."
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.
Stonewalling in Style:
Bank of America Subpoenaed
NY Attorney General Says Ken Lewis Refuses to Say Who Got Bonuses
By RICHARD ESPOSITO and JOANNA JENNINGS
Feb. 27, 2009—
In just one day, the president of Bank of America, Ken Lewis, managed to defy both President Barack Obama and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
On Thursday, Lewis refused to provide a list of bonus payments to the New York Attorney General, after arriving in New York in his $50 million corporate jet. Earlier this week, President Obama said the days of bank executives flying corporate jets "were over." Not for Bank of America.
Click here to watch Lewis arriving in one of Bank of America's luxury corporate jets.
After Lewis refused to disclose just who got what out of $3.6 billion in bonuses given to Merrill Lynch employees before the banks merged late last year, the AG's office responded harshly in the latest saga in the brewing legal battle.
"Bank of America has made the decision they don't want to turn that information over to us and we, therefore, tonight served Bank of America with a subpoena to turn over that information," said Special Assistant to the New York Attorney General Benjamin Lawsky Thursday evening, "and we intend to get that by whatever means is necessary going forward."
Lewis met with the attorney general's office for four hours, and he claimed afterwards that he fully cooperated.
Watch what Lewis had to say after the meeting.
But New York officials told ABC News the session with Lewis was ugly and combative. They accused Lewis and the bank of stonewalling, saying they refused to provide a list of which executives got what of the billions in bonuses.
Watch the attorney general office's response to the meeting.
Some 700 Merrill Lynch employees received a total of $3.6 billion dollars just before the firm's record losses became known and before it merged with Bank of America.
Lewis Flew in Luxury Corporate Jet
The CEO arrived in style for the meeting, first traveling from the bank's headquarters in Charlotte on a $50 million G-5 corporate plane, and then in a premium SUV from a private jet airport in New Jersey to the Manhattan office.
Congressman Elijiah Cummings, (D-MD), decried such "outlandish activity" by the CEOs, telling ABC News' Good Morning America today that he thinks "these folks are on another planet" and "just don't get it."
"To be very frank with you," Cummings added, "I don't really think they care."
Click here to watch Congressman Cummings denounce luxury perks for CEOs of bailed-out firms.
The bank, which has received $45 billion in federal bailout money, defended the use of the luxury private plane for the hour-and-a-half flight, saying it was justified for efficiency and timing reasons. It cost at least $5,000 an hour just for gasoline and pilots. According to travel Web sites, a scheduled commercial flight on US Airways would have cost $440.
The immediate issue for Lewis, say investigators, is whether he has told "the whole story" about the huge bonuses paid shortly before Merrill Lynch merged with Bank of America. Appearing before Congress earlier this month, Lewis said he had "no authority" over the bonuses.
John Thain Testified Early This Week
Corporate merger documents read to ABC News, however, say the bonuses would be awarded "in consultation" with Bank of America.
Merrill Lynch's John Thain testified before Cuomo's investigators earlier this week and provided a list of bonus recipients and amounts.
Investigators say a total of 696 employees received bonuses, each more than $1 million.
Four top employees were given bonuses totaling $21 million.
Thain, in his first deposition Feb. 19, had initially refused to answer questions regarding the bonuses, according to a partial transcript of that session. On Monday, he was ordered to reappear after the attorney general's office sought and received a court order compelling him to answer the questions.
The bonuses became a subject of the investigation into Merrill's merger with Bank of America by Cuomo's office after the attorney general raised whether the two banks -- which together received about $45 billion in taxpayer dollars -- worked together to arrange the early bonus plan just weeks before the merger was completed.
The bonus package, called the Variable Incentive Compensation Package, provoked outrage when it was revealed that Merrill Lynch lost $25 billion in 2008.
Click Here for the Investigative Homepage.
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
The Complaisant Watchdog:
The Press and the Madoff Scandal
The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times slept while Bernie Madoff swindled
By Eamonn Fingleton
An old maxim has it that newspaper editors separate the wheat from the chaff, then print the chaff. By this standard, the editors of the Wall Street Journal have shown special deftness in their handling of the Madoff affair.
They used the occasion of whistleblower Harry Markopolos’ testimony in Washington recently to address seemingly every minuscule detail of the scam. They even published an irrelevant, if lovingly crafted, floor plan of Bernard Madoff's office in the Midtown Manhattan Lipstick building. Yet, in all their apparent desire to “flood the zone” (maybe they’re angling for a Pulitzer!), one detail was missing. Not a word of explanation was offered about the curious role played by the Journal’s own Washington-based investigative reporter John R. Wilke.
As Markopolos’ written testimony has made clear, Wilke long ago knew the score. As far back as 2005, he had been entrusted with Markopolos’ now famous dossier raising no less than 29 red flags about Madoff. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, on the strength of an afternoon’s research, a good reporter could have worked up any one of Markopolos’ points into a cracker of a front-page story. Taken as a whole, the dossier represented the biggest “career development opportunity” any journalist has been handed since Deep Throat delivered the goods on Richard Nixon to Woodward and Bernstein a generation ago.
There are differing accounts of what happened next. According to Markopolos, Wilke was hot to trot but needed the blessing of higher-ups. And, unfortunately, the Journal’s “news” operation is apparently run much like an Amtrak marshaling yard. As months turned into years, Markopolos’ 29 red flags festered like so many rotten tomatoes in some desk jockey’s in-tray. Other sources, however, place the blame firmly on Wilke’s shoulders. Apparently, he started to dig but lost heart because there was so little publicly available information on Madoff’s modus operandi.
It is all very puzzling. The question, of course, is why would Markopolos lie about something like this? And then there is the simple fact that his testimony on other, more weighty matters has already been resoundingly vindicated.
What is not in dispute is that, to the Journal’s eternal shame, the story eventually came out only after an avalanche of redemptions left Bernie with nowhere to hide and he turned himself in. In the interim, by remaining silent, the Journal played a devastatingly ignominious role in one of the biggest and most brazen scams in history.
If the Journal’s shame is particularly acute, virtually no one in American financial journalism emerges from this fiasco with much credit.
One dog that snoozed in its kennel was the New York Times. The Madoff scam was, of course, a local story for the Times, not least because Times editors undoubtedly knew many of Madoff’s victims socially. It is surprising, to say the least, that no Times person ever seems to have sensed there was something fishy going on in the Lipstick building. The Upper East Side was buzzing with rumors about his apparently sensational investment returns. Many a New York socialite either had money invested with him – and boasted of it in a loud stage whisper – or at least wanted to do so.
Yet it was only on the day of Madoff’s arrest that the Times condescended to inform its readers that many of his more alert peers had sensed he was a fake all along. For years, he had been pegged as an outright Ponzi artist by Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, for instance, and he was blacklisted also at Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, and UBS. Indeed, as far back as 1991, CounterPunch contributor Pam Martens, in her capacity as a Wall Street broker, had told him she was on to his game and had so advised a client. For thousands of aggrieved Times readers, who lost their life savings in Bernie’s financial Bates Motel, the question is why they were the last to know.
To be sure, primary blame for dropping the Madoff ball lies with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). But the fact that the SEC is a basket case is not news. Infected by the “greed is good” virus that has ravaged political discourse for nearly three decades, American financial regulation has now become so corrupt and incompetent that it would embarrass a Third World kleptocracy. What is news – at least to those who lack independent sources of information – is that top American editors and reporters now seem no more willing to tackle wealthy and well-connected crooks than their avowedly venal and cowed peers in, say, Jakarta or Harare.
Which journalists and publications have been most remiss? It is not just the Journal that would prefer you don’t ask. Virtually the entire American media establishment has gone catatonic. Searches of Nexis, a news clippings database that includes many publications in the English language, indicate as much. As of mid-February, anyone who searched for, for instance, “Markopolos and Madoff and Wilke” found only eight results, of which only one came from the mainstream press (a brief note by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post). The entire subject seems to be a no-go area even at the New York Times, which has yet to mention Wilke’s name. Is this a case of people in glass houses not throwing stones? It sure looks like it. What is certain is that in one hitherto unpublicized email message included in his written testimony, Markopolos stated that various Times people, most notably assistant financial editor Gretchen Morgenson, were “pretty much in the know.” It is not clear whether he had been in direct touch with any of them, but this would seem to be a reasonable inference. For the record, Morgenson, who in 2002 won a Pulitzer prize for her “trenchant and incisive” coverage of Wall Street, has told CounterPunch she can’t recall ever hearing from Markopolos. She added: “If you could be more specific about when it was that he supposedly contacted me I would be grateful.” As it happens, the date is not indicated in the correspondence and Markopolos is incommunicado.
As for the Journal, the closest it has come to acknowledging its own role has been in two sentences summarizing Markopolos’ complaints about its inaction. In covering Markopolos’ oral testimony in early February, it wrote: “Mr. Markopolos said that in December 2005, he contacted a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, resulting in a number of phone calls and emails. Mr. Markopolos said he thinks that senior editors prevented the reporter from the newspaper’s Washington Bureau from flying to Boston to meet and discuss the Madoff issue.”
Fair enough – but the Journal didn’t leave it there. It went on: ”A spokesman for Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, said Mr. Markopolos was ‘ill-informed and incorrect’ but declined to comment further on Mr. Markopolos’ statements.”
Dow Jones’ comment is a functional lie – an outrageous and deliberate distortion. Anyone who studies the full context can see that the “ill-informed and incorrect” epithets can only relate to the one implausible inference in Markopolos’ testimony, his idea (unmentioned in the Journal report) that Journal staff may have feared for their personal safety. Markopolos feared for his own safety, but, as a lone whistleblower struggling to get the attention of the SEC, he had more to worry about than a major national institution. The main thrust of Markopolos’ allegation – that the Journal wantonly ignored the biggest investment scandal in modern times – is in no way addressed in the Dow Jones comment.
The former executive editor of the Journal, Paul Steiger, who ran the paper in the relevant years, has disavowed personal responsibility for the fiasco. In an email message to CounterPunch, he wrote: “No mention of Markopolos’s initiative, or indeed no mention of Madoff, came up the line to me, nor would it be expected to. Only if the Washington bureau had decided to pursue a story would that happen.” He added that John Wilke was “an outstanding journalist” who at the time was producing “a string of deep, exclusive reports about such things as the misuse of earmarks.” If Steiger’s comments are meant to exonerate Wilke, by the same token they appear to spotlight Gerald Seib and Nikhil Deogun, who served respectively as the chief and deputy chief of the Washington Bureau in the years concerned. Asked to comment, Deogun referred CounterPunch to the Journal’s spokesman who, in turn, is not prepared to speak for attribution. Meanwhile, Seib flatly denies responsibility. Responding to CounterPunch, he wrote: “Your question appears to simply accept the premise that a Markopolos initiative was ‘sidetracked,’ and then asks me to comment on that. So let me try to be as clear as possible here: It is completely, absolutely, 100% incorrect to say that some reporting initiative was sidetracked. The notion is flatly wrong.”
It may be worth noting that both men have prospered mightily since Rupert Murdoch took control of the Journal in 2007. Seib has rocketed to assistant managing editor and is a fixture on Murdoch’s Fox Business News channel. As for Deogun, he was promoted to the plum assignment of foreign editor while still not yet 40. Given that the testimony of both Steiger and Markopolos seems fairly solid, it would appear that either Seib or Deogun or perhaps both are in the soup, with negative implications for Murdoch’s efforts to rebuild morale at 200 Liberty Street. A fair inference is that Wilke may have had his calendar loaded down with busy-work chasing political minnows in Washington when, with leadership and the help of a numerate colleague, he could have reeled in a financial whale in New York.
How could any capable editor fail to see the possibilities in the Markopolos dossier? Ryan Chittum, a blogger at the Columbia Journalism Review’s website, has opined that the fault lay with – get this – Markopolos! Markopolos was not credible enough, apparently – this despite the fact that he was an acknowledged expert in options trading, the field where Madoff was ostensibly performing such alchemy.
Let’s first note that Chittum may have an axe to grind. He is not only a former Wall Street Journal reporter, but his work has been published at ProPublica, a website that just happens to be run by Paul Steiger.
Was Markopolos really such a hopeless witness? Not in the eyes of Mike Garrity, head of the SEC’s outpost in Boston, where Markopolos lives. Garrity was clearly impressed by Markopolos and did his best to help. Unfortunately, he could not do anything directly because jurisdiction lay with the SEC’s New York branch. In a telling departure from the usual pattern of bureaucratic indifference in such circumstances, however, he repeatedly encouraged Markopolos to keep banging on New York’s door.
Markopolos had a “credibility problem” only in the sense that some of his more sophisticated analyses may have gone over the heads of Journal apparatchiks (as it seems to have gone over Chittum’s). The fact is that Markopolos front-loaded his lengthy dossier with his most technical and – to an intelligent, financially literate reader – most telling points. Big mistake. The poor fellow had not realized that, judged even by the indifferent standards set elsewhere, even senior financial journalists in the United States are notoriously mediocre. Virtually without exception, they cannot read a balance sheet – an ability that is to serious financial reporting roughly what eyesight is to driving a car. Moreover, financial knowledge at the Wall Street Journal seems to vary in inverse proportion to rank. Journal editors are “big picture” people, who are too busy spouting globalist claptrap or defending the bombing of Arab schools to try to sit down and read about a $50 billion fraud in their own backyard.
Yet the truth is that any intelligent young financial reporter with, say, two years experience should have had no difficulty understanding – and concurring with – even the most abstruse aspects of Markopolos’ argument. For the rest, the case was so obvious that even a child could not have missed the point.
For a start, what inference is to be drawn from the fact that, as we have already noted, Madoff was blacklisted by some of Wall Street’s top securities houses – and this despite a long record of producing ostensibly some of the highest returns of any fund manager in the world?
Then there is the fact that even as Madoff’s investment business ballooned, he stuck with a three-person hole-in-the-wall auditing outfit run by his elderly brother-in-law (Red Flag 17). Anyone who manages $1 million of other people’s money, let alone $50 billion, finds it a useful earnest of good faith to have his books audited by an independent and preferably well-known firm. As Markopolos pointed out, Madoff’s eccentric choice of auditor became an explicit issue when European bankers, acting on behalf of an Arab client, requested an independent audit. Madoff showed them the door, thereby passing up the opportunity to rake in a large chunk of cash.
The journalistic significance of Red Flag 17 is that, like many of the other lower ranked flags in the Markopolos dossier, it was easy to check out. In fact, unless Madoff chose to stonewall, it could have been instantly confirmed with a single phone call. Although in itself it did not prove very much, it strongly suggested that further inquiries would be well worth the effort.
In his aversion to normal reality checking, Madoff ran true to the classic Ponzi type. Classic, too, was his excuse. His investment methods, he explained, were proprietary, and if he let independent auditors in, he risked losing his secrets to competitors. This was, of course, balderdash. Imagine how such an excuse might play in any other field. Suppose a golfer claimed his swing was a secret, so no one except a 78-year-old relative should be permitted to witness his play and check his score. The point is absurd, and in real life we know that Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson have no problem with lesser mortals dissecting their play. The full absurdity of Madoff’s excuse is obvious when you realize that no genuinely successful investor has ever had much fear of auditors. An auditor comes in after the fact – weeks, if not months, after the balance sheet date – to confirm that assets claimed to have been held at said date were actually there. They cannot out-Buffett Buffett simply by knowing what stocks Buffett held three weeks ago. Still less can they hope to reverse-engineer the financial logic behind Buffett’s stock-picking. Indeed, even though Buffett has gone to some lengths to explain his techniques, remarkably few of his disciples have had much luck emulating him. Madoff’s talk of a secret investment method was one of the oldest and most transparent tricks in the fraudster’s repertoire – a minimally disguised version of the imaginative scam, perpetrated during the South Sea Bubble in eighteenth-century London, in which a stock promoter announced the launch of ”a company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.”
Of course, defenders of the press’s virtue point out that Madoff was widely trusted by society figures. Certainly, he had no trouble relieving the great and the good of their wallets. Not least of his victims were such familiar names as CNN talker extraordinaire Larry King and Dangerous Liaisons star John Malkovich. But in common with most of Madoff’s other celebrity victims, neither King nor Malkovich is a economic sage. As any Wall Streeter can tell on sight, they fit in a different category, and there’s one born every minute. (It is only fair to point out that celebrities seem particularly vulnerable to Ponzi schemes. Sir Isaac Newton was among countless bigwigs taken to the cleaners in the South Sea Bubble. Ever afterward, he had the vapors any time the subject came up.)
Of more forensic interest is the fact that some financial notables got their coattails caught in Bernie’s wringer. One example was Henry Kaufman, a former top Salomon Brothers executive whose pessimistic commentaries on America’s economic prospects in the Carter years earned him the soubriquet Dr. Doom. Then there is the ubiquitous Mort Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News, a man who made his pile in Boston real estate and is thus presumably sensitive to scam artists. If Madoff’s Ponzi act was good enough to fool Zuckerman, surely the press has a secure alibi? Actually, no.
The point is that Markopolos’ dossier was not available to Zuckerman. Had it been, his money would surely have been out of the Lipstick building in a New York minute.
Most of the facts unearthed by Markopolos were truly unexpected and were accumulated only after years of dogged sleuthing. Markopolos’ interest had been first piqued as far back as the 1990s, when colleagues told him of this amazing fund manager who was ostensibly using a conservative options-based hedging strategy to generate consistently superlative returns. As an options expert, Markopolos quickly determined that what Madoff was claiming was impossible (in this conclusion, he was joined by many Wall Street authorities, not least analysts at Goldman Sachs). Either Madoff was faking or he was pursuing a quite different investment strategy, in all probability a shady one, known as “front-running” (more about this in a second). At a minimum, Madoff was a liar. This conviction inspired Markopolos to dig ever deeper and sustained him through many vicissitudes. The basic problem was that a highly secretive Madoff had structured his business so that statutory disclosure obligations were risibly light. After years of piecing together information from a wide variety of mainly private sources, however, Markopolos became convinced that front-running was not the explanation. That left only one possibility: Madoff was running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Markopolos’ 29 red flags summarized the argument. Only the most obvious action required – and, in all probability, it would have been undertaken almost immediately had the press got on the SEC’s case – was that Madoff’s operations be subjected to a thorough, independent audit.
Although Madoff’s investors knew nothing of the 29-flag dossier, the more sophisticated of them surely never swallowed his presentation of himself as a financial magician. As the author Michael Lewis has pointed out, it is a fair bet that they always assumed he was front-running. In other words they realized he was a crook but just not in a way that threatened their wallets. To understand this line of reasoning, one must first realize that Madoff was not only a fund manager but a broker/dealer, and a big one at that. Front-running refers to the practice by brokers of exploiting privileged knowledge about future buying and selling by large financial institutions to make private profits. A typical instance might start when a broker receives a big order from an institutional investor to buy shares in, say, IBM. This is more or less guaranteed to send the price shooting up, and if the broker can nip in seconds ahead with an order for his personal account, he or she is guaranteed an almost certain, risk-free, and instantaneous profit. Front-running is pandemic on Wall Street and, as Madoff’s more sophisticated investors realized, almost no one was better placed to profit from it than Madoff. Basically, they assumed he was turbocharging his fund management performance, thanks to his brokerage knowledge. Of course, in theory he might have been prosecuted but, given what a shambles American financial regulation had become, the risk was slight. In any case, as Michael Lewis has argued, his investors may have reasoned that the worst that could happen was that “a good thing would come to an end.”
Up until December, the financial press had virtually never taken a serious look at Madoff. The closest it had ever got to figuring him out was in two articles published in 2001.
Any intelligent young financial reporter should have had no difficulty understanding Markopolos’ argument.
Written respectively by Michael Ocrant of MARHedge magazine and Erin Arvedlund of Barron’s, these were both legally constrained accounts of the skepticism already then rife among Madoff’s competitors. The conclusion an intelligent reader would have come to was that front- running was probably the explanation (Arvedlund’s article, for instance, was coyly headed, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).
Although Markopolos had yet to surface as a potential press source, he was already way ahead. As he realized, front-running only really works where the front-runner is small in relation to the institutional orders he exploits (otherwise, he can’t get out of his own way). This is where Markopolos’ sleuthing paid off. He knew that although Madoff tried to pass himself off as a small player who was merely investing on behalf of a few friends and relatives (an alibi that tended to reassure the sophisticates who believed he was front-running), by 2001 the amount of new money he was pulling in was already torrential.
As Markopolos went on to document, Madoff had structured his business to make it difficult for all but the most determined investigator to fathom its true scale. In particular, he relied on a slew of so-called feeder funds to bring in most of the new money. Investors in many of these funds never knew where their money ended up.
The conclusion from all this is that up until 2005, the press bears relatively little blame for its failure to spot an arch Ponzi artist at work. Yes, even before Markopolos surfaced, a capable reporter with a little knowledge of previous Ponzi schemes could have spotted the truth, but it would have taken some luck and considerable digging.
The real disgrace is the press’s treatment of Markopolos. Although we have yet to find out how many news organizations he talked to, it is already clear that the Journal’s behavior was inexcusable. For the record, Paul Steiger is at one with the current Dow Jones establishment in implying that the problem was nothing more than a bureaucratic snafu. In his note to CounterPunch, he wrote, “Mr. Markopolos’ suggestion that the Journal would have been intimidated from pursuing Madoff, or was somehow in cahoots with him, is fantasy. The Journal wrote tough stories about infinitely more powerful people, such as Dick Grasso and Hank Greenberg.”
Perhaps. But the fact that the Journal went after Grasso and Greenberg does not mean that it could not be blown off-course in other cases. The most likely explanation is surely that Madoff pulled strings. As a big donor to politicians and charities, he undoubtedly had plenty of surrogates with access to relevant journalists.
Then, there is the fact that cronyism is rife both on Wall Street and in Washington. On top of all this there was the problem that the most damning aspects of Markopolos analysis would have gone over many heads at an editorial conference.
One thing is for sure: it is about time the rest of the press held the Journal’s feet to the fire. Why should newspapers set the bar of public accountability any lower for themselves that they do for, say, General Motors or Exxon Mobil?
Eamonn Fingleton, a former editor for Forbes magazine and the Financial Times, is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008). He can be reached at efingleton@gmail.com, or via his website, www.unsustainable.org.
To: All
"It appears that at least $15 billion of wealth, much of which was concentrated in southern Florida and New York City, has gone to 'money heaven,'"
Hah.
I do not believe the so-called "investors" sob stories for a nanosecond.
As the bard of Avon wrote: “tis better to be thought a hapless victim of a Ponzi scheme than to admit to tax evasion.”
The warning signs were there for all to see:
STEADY RETURNS UNDER EVERY MARKET CONDITION---whether up or down
ASSETS ESTIMATED AT $13B BUT Madoff's FILINGS SHOW HOLDINGS OF LESS THAN $1B IN SHARES.
Impossible to believe astute businessman who made fortunes in competitive businesses would allow themselves to be scammed……unless......these elites were in collusion with Madoff to engage in a massive tax evasion scheme.
That would explain why savvy, astute businessmen people were giving this guy huge sums ---$100-500 million--- to “invest.”
Keep in mind, at the end Madoff was left with some $300 million out of $50 billion. That much money does not just evaporate.
Apparently Madoff kept a cut of the “investment” and wire-transferred the bulk offshore to friendly money laundering havens.
The whole scam crashed b/c Madoff probably wanted a bigger cut but the "investors" refused.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Hi I'm Bernie Madoff.. Tell me what you think!
I'm Bernard Madoff and I've admitted to operating the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history.
Of course, I couldn't have succeeded without help from others that were involved, and of course, I certainly couldn't have succeeded unless those that gave me money were driven by greed.
I didn't put a gun to their heads. In fact, I turned back many people that wanted to invest with me ! (although, those were the people that asked too many questions and were potentially too suspicious of my answers.)
Can you imagine that all of the money managers and all of the individuals that lost billions and billions trusted me so implicitly?
Not a single one hired an expert or an independent due diligence firm to determine if it was even plausible to make the types of consistent returns trading options and stocks that I delivered to my customers. And, most of the fund managers were paid kickbacks from us for placing their client money under our care. Of course, those fund managers also earned fees from their investors for picking me to manage their way out of their money.
After all, not even my 10 year old grandchild could believe that I would be able to deliver what was effectively a 10% fixed rate of return year after year, notwithstanding the massive volatility in the financial markets.
Every month my investors, and those that thought they had deposited money into segregated brokerage accounts received between .15% and 1.0%...and i showed them every trade that I executed on their behalf via monthly brokerage statements that I mailed to each one.
Obviously, if any single investor had actually reviewed the trading activity statements, they would have found that the prices of stocks and options that I told them I traded matched the end of day prices published in the newspaper. But, if they had checked the actual day's volume of those stocks and options, and looked at the total capital invested with me (over $12 billion), they would have noticed that the volumes couldn't have possibly matched.
For example, I reported to one customer with $10 million in capital that I purchased 1000 put options in IBM for his account. For the customer with $100 million, I told him I purchased 10000 option contracts, and for the customer with $1billion, I told them I purchased 100,000 option contracts. All of them were reported at exactly the same price.
If they looked on line at any financial data website, and researched the number of put options that actually traded that day, it should have displayed at least 100,000 contracts. But it didn't, because the exchange-reported volume was a fraction of 100,000 contracts. Proving that the account statements were completely bogus.
And, I would never email an account statement, or provide online account access, just the nice paper documents. That would have involved too many people and a digital trail with computers and hard drives. It was just me, along with a few others that would help print up monthly statements in the maids quarters of my apartment on the Upper East Side. We also had a copy machine on my yacht, and another one at my home in South Hampton, NY. By the way, its beautiful in the Hamptons! Bet you want to know who in my family might have been involved!!
Keep reading!!
The best part is, all of those properties are in my wife's name, or in the name of a trust. So the federal government will take years to seize those properties, and while I'm out on $10 million bond (secured by the NYC apartment), I'll be able to travel to my house in the Hamptons and chill out, or relax on the Upper East Side in my coop. Sure, many of many investors will have already lost their multi-million dollar properties, and some will have to move to a studio apartment in Queens to live the remainder of their lives on Social Security. Isn't Social Security great!!!
And, by the time the SEC or even the Feds decide to seize those properties (and auction them off, where the proceeds will go to the government, not to victims), my lawyers at Paul Weiss Rifkin will have already quietly sold them off on my behalf, and the $50 million or so that we'll get will be divided amongst my wife, and my wonderful children and grand children.
That $50 million will easily cover their college educations, provide homes for everyone, and they'll all be able to shop in Palm Beach and Boca Raton. Maybe one of my kids will even pick up that nice condo in Boca from the estate of one of my greedy investors that had a stroke and dropped dead when he found out that I stole his, and his entire family's life savings.
I won't be going to jail for at least another three, maybe four years. So, in the mean time, I'll be posting here and telling you how everything is, and maybe even provide some restaurant reviews. Right around the corner from us is a great Italian place. And now that I'm not going into the office every day, I'll be finding great places for lunch on the Upper East Side that I'll be telling you about on this blog.
I'll also be telling you about who else helped me, the names of the many "introducers" that I enlisted to capture client money, and for those that want to subscribe for the low price of $100 per year, I'll send you a weekly update containing all of the court filings in the case. There's going to be thousands of documents, so $100 is an unbelievable conservative and realistic price.
Oh, for those that are asking; I didn't start out in Wall Street operating Ponzi schemes. Me, and my family members have long-operated a market-making firm in stocks. Did you know that I was the former Chairman of the NASDAQ? That was a great job. With that on my resume, I never had to worry about the SEC or any regulator questioning my firm. If they stopped by, we had a glass of shnapps and shot the breeze. Never even opened a file cabinet!
Anyway, customers, and other institutions would call us up to buy and sell stock in hundreds of different securities. We made our first fortune by "front-running" those orders. That means we would go ahead and purchase for our own account, then turn around and sell it to the customer at a higher price. And for inhouse brokerage customers, we even charged them a commission, on top of the trade! Nobody new! It was beautiful!
In the mean time, if you'd like to send me a card, or perhaps a free sample of a product, here's where I live:
Bernard L Madoff
133 E 64th St
New York, NY 10065
(212) 737-2043
What Goes Up: The Uncensored History of Modern Wall Street as Told by the Bankers, Brokers, CEOs, and Scoundrels who Made it Happen
By Eric J. Weiner
Edition: illustrated
Published by Little, Brown and Company, 2005
ISBN 0316929662, 9780316929660
503 pages
Page 188
BERNIE MADOFF (founder and chairman of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities): I started out in 1960 as a market-making firm, but that was before Nasdaq. ...
Page 189
BERNIE MADOFF: We were one of the firms that first asked the question, why couldn't you just automate the trading in the OTC market through the use of ...
Page 191
BERNIE MADOFF: We were involved in the design of the Nasdaq technology. It wasn't genius, believe me. A lot of people give us credit for being these ...
1-25 of 318View next document
Results
1. Madoffs Concerned About Next Nasdaq
On Wall Street, May 01, 1998, 243 words, Marcia Vickers
2. The Madoff Mystery
Traders Magazine, January 01, 1997, 2548 words, John A. Byrne
3. Price Improvement' Dust-Up
Traders Magazine, July 01, 1999, 322 words, Staff Reports
4. Price Improvement' Dust-Up
Traders Magazine, July 01, 1999, 322 words, Staff Reports
5. Madoff: Profits Safe in Net Trade Rule: Nasdaq's New Backdoor Way of Reducing Section 31 Fees
Traders Magazine, November 01, 2000, 624 words, William Hoffman
6. Pennies Squeeze Wholesale Services
Traders Magazine, September 01, 2001, 285 words, Peter Chapman
7. Another Stab AtThe Third Market: Madoff's Brave New Trading World
Traders Magazine, September 01, 1999, 854 words, Peter Chapman
8. Traders Fight Nasdaq's Proposed Trading System
Traders Magazine, January 01, 1998, 826 words, Jeffrey L. Winograd
9. Partners Poised For March Primex Launch, October 01, 2000, 1166 words, Mary Schroeder
10. Besieged Dealers Search for Profits
Traders Magazine, November 01, 2001, 278 words, Steven Adler
11. Nasdaq Up, NYSE Down In Listed Market League
Traders Magazine, May 1, 2002, 272 words, Peter Chapman
12. Primex' structure leaves Madoff holding the aces
Investment Dealers Digest, June 21, 1999, 591 words, Heike Wipperfurth
13. Lawmakers Look at Listed Prices: In the ITS Debate, a Sympathetic Ear for ECNs
Traders Magazine, August 1, 2002, 641 words, Desmond MacRae
14. News: Internet Trading - New York market-maker calls for action to halt trading frenzy on internet stocks
Investors Chronicle, January 15, 1999, Pg. 7, 331 words, By ROSIE CARR
15. NASDAQ to trade NYSE stocks: Electronic exchange
National Post (Canada), December 10, 1999 Friday, 393 words, Peter Morton
16. Washington Watch: The Summertime Trading Blues
Traders Magazine, August 01, 2000, 471 words, William Hoffman
17. Bernie Madoff's Top-Secret Mission To Create a New Trading System: Nasdaq's Shipway jumps aboard Primex; talks with backers continue
Investment Dealers Digest, May 31, 1999, 759 words, Heike Wipperfurth
18. NASD's Proposed Central Limit Order Book On Shaky Ground Market Makers Fear New Platform May Hurt Business
Traders Magazine, August 01, 1997, 619 words, Michael L. O'Reilly
19. At Deadline
Traders Magazine, September 01, 2001, 654 words, Editorial Staff
20. Institutional investing, computer trading leave the Boston stock exchange Fighting for its life
The Boston Globe, November 8, 1992, Sunday, City Edition, ECONOMY; Pg. 75, 1232 words, By Kimberly Blanton, Globe Staff
21. Eclipse's After-Hours Trading Service Due to Debut This Summer
Web Finance, March 15, 1999, 622 words, Mary Schroeder
22. FIRMS CREATE SYSTEM AS RIVAL TO BIG BOARD
WALL STREET JOURNAL, June 8, 1999, Tuesday, Section C; Page 1, Column 3, 63 words, BY GREG IP
23. Ask the Expert: Careers
WALL STREET & TECHNOLOGY, October 1, 2006, UP FRONT; Pg. 14, 443 words, Mark Madoff
24. Miss West Wed To A. H. Madoff
The New York Times, January 19, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 1; Part 2; Page 46; Column 3; Society Desk, 144 words
25. Ask the Expert: Trading
WALL STREET & TECHNOLOGY, July 1, 2006, UPFRONT; Pg. 18, 382 words, Mark Madoff
The Owner's Name is on the Door
In an era of faceless organizations owned by other equally faceless organizations, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC harks back to an earlier era in the financial world: The owner's name is on the door. Clients know that Bernard Madoff has a personal interest in maintaining the unblemished record of value, fair-dealing, and high ethical standards that has always been the firm's hallmark.
Bernard L. Madoff founded the investment firm that bears his name in 1960, soon after leaving law school. His brother, Peter B. Madoff, graduated from law school and joined the firm in 1970. While building the firm into a significant force in the securities industry, they have both been deeply involved in leading the dramatic transformation that has been underway in US securities trading.
Bernard L. Madoff has been a major figure in the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), the major self-regulatory organization for US broker/dealer firms. The firm was one of the five broker/dealers most closely involved in developing the NASDAQ Stock Market. He has been chairman of the board of directors of the NASDAQ Stock Market as well as a member of the board of governors of the NASD and a member of numerous NASD committees.
One major US financial publication lauded Bernard Madoff for his role in "helping to make NASDAQ a faster, fairer, more efficient and more international system." He has also served as a member of the board of directors of the Securities Industry Association.
Reflecting the growing international involvement of the firm, when Madoff Securities opened a London office in 1983, it would become one of the first US members of the London Stock Exchange. Bernard Madoff was also a founding member of the board of directors of the International Securities Clearing Corporation in London.
Peter B. Madoff has also been deeply involved in the NASD and other financial services regulatory organizations. He has served as vice chairman of the NASD, a member of its board of governors, and chairman of its New York region. He also has been actively involved in the NASDAQ Stock Market as a member of its board of governors and its executive committee and as chairman of its trading committee. He also has been president of the Security Traders Association of New York. He is a member of the board of directors of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. He is a member of the board of the Securities Industry Association.
Bernard and Peter Madoff have both played instrumental roles in the development of the fully computerized National Stock Exchange. Peter Madoff has been a member of its board of governors and has served on its executive committee. They have helped make the National Exchange the fastest growing regional stock exchange in the United States.
These positions of leadership not only indicate the deep interest Madoff Securities has shown in its industry, they also reflect the respect the firm and its management have achieved in the financial community.
Bob Greifeld is Chief Executive Officer of The NASDAQ OMX Group (NASDAQ: NDAQ), the world's largest exchange company. Mr. Greifeld has a 20-year history in technology and created one of the first electronic stock order matching systems. Today he leads one of the most dynamic companies in the exchange and technology sector, which delivers trading, financial market technology and public company services across six continents.
NASDAQ OMX has over 3,900 companies from 39 countries representing all industry sectors. Mr. Greifeld led NASDAQ's combination with Stockholm-based OMX AB, as well as the acquisitions of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the Boston Stock Exchange and most recently Nord Pool, now NASDAQ OMX Commodities. Under Mr. Greifeld's leadership, the growth of The Nasdaq Stock Market has been impressive, with 16 consecutive quarters of top line growth. The year 2007 was NASDAQ's most successful since it began reporting financials in 1997.
Greifeld has been a strong advocate of modernizing exchanges and financial regulation to improve U.S. competitiveness and the performance of the markets to benefit investors. Prior to joining NASDAQ OMX, Greifeld led the buy- and sell-side transaction routing businesses for SunGard Data Systems. While serving as President and Chief Operating Officer of Automated Securities Clearance, Inc. Greifeld led the team that created BRASS and made it the industry standard trade order management system for NASDAQ stocks. Greifeld holds a Masters in Business from New York University, Stern School of Business and a B.A. in English from Iona College. His graduate school thesis was on the operation of The NASDAQ Stock Market.
Greifeld is Chairman of the USA Track & Field Foundation. He is a member of the Business Roundtable, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Partnership for New York City, an organization devoted to enhancing the local economy.
Current as of: 02/09
The Madoff files: Bernie's billions
How did Bernhard Madoff set about building the most audacious fraud in history? Did no one suspect that his investments were too good to be true? And how could his sons and brother, who helped run the family business, know nothing of the deception? As the full story emerges, Stephen Foley pieces together the $50bn puzzle
Thursday, 29 January 2009
AP
A grinning Madoff arrives at court in New York earlier this month
It was 8.30 on a gloomy winter morning – Thursday 11 December – when the FBI's Agent Theodore Cacioppi made a house call. A penthouse call, to be exact. Accompanied by a sidekick from the bureau, Cacioppi strode into the lobby of the graceful pre-war building on Manhattan's monied Upper East Side, and announced himself to the doorman who guards access to the elite residents inside. The relatively modest lobby, with leather chairs and a single orchid for decoration, is at the opposite end of the scale to the dripping opulence of a Donald Trump creation. The giant apartments at 133 East 64th Street – just two per floor – start at $5m, and duplex penthouses at $7m. It's an address for people who want to enjoy the luxuries great wealth affords without shouting about it.
As Cacioppi was ushered to the elevator he cannot have realised that he was about to unmask the greatest fraudster the world has ever seen. He was there not because of years of dogged detective work, but to follow up an emotional confession made the previous evening to the suspect's sons, who had turned their father in. At 8.30am, Bernard Lawrence Madoff let the officers in.
One of the most outwardly respectable gentlemen in New York finance for decades, Madoff confessed to conning his family, friends, colleagues, clients and regulators to the tune of $50bn. With his confession to Cacioppi, Madoff drove a final nail into the coffin of the dazzling, wild Wall Street of the past quarter of a century.
Related articles
More Business Analysis
"We are here to find out if there is an innocent explanation," Cacioppi said quietly. The 70-year-old financier – his grey hair receding but thick and kept long, swept back; his skin tanned, making him look younger – paused, then replied. "There is no innocent explanation."
The words unleashed a firestorm. As piece by piece the breathtaking scale of this fraud came to light, revealing a vast network of rich and famous victims across the world and banks brought to the brink of collapse, it has become increasingly mind-boggling to trace this maelstrom back to Bernard Madoff. How could one man alone evaporate so much wealth? What was he thinking? It is hard to imagine that we will ever have more than a partial answer.
Enron was at least a corporation, where a cadre of executives spun a deceit whose spectacular end came to symbolise the excesses of the dot.com era. The Madoff affair (it is indeed pronounced "made off") is a more baffling concept.
The bare bones are easily understood. He was lying when he said he was investing his clients' money and generating enviable, steady returns. There were no profits; instead, their money was going to pay other clients who wanted to cash out. It is an old fraudster trick, a pyramid scheme, or "Ponzi scheme", to use the American term, after the immigrant who conned New York's Italian community around 1920. Charles Ponzi discovered that you need ever increasing amounts of new cash to keep the game going; what is so astonishing is how, over so many years, Madoff did manage to harvest those ever-increasing sums. Every month, he sent out statements telling clients how their nest eggs were stacking up, statements whose fictitious balances totalled about $50bn, as he told Agent Cacioppi that morning. In fact, there was less than $300m in the pot.
It was just after the end of the trading day on Wall Street when the details of that morning's arrest popped up on the newswires, and CNBC, the business channel that blares out from the corner of most offices made its breathless announcement: "If you work on a trading desk, stop what you're doing for one second before you walk out the door and clean your desk out for the day," said presenter Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. "Bernie Madoff has been arrested...."
Madoff may not have been a household name, but for almost 50 years, Madoff Investment Securities has been one of the industry's most prominent trading firms and Madoff one of its more famous faces. His is just the sort of hardscrabble tale that Wall Street loves to mythologise – the boy from Queens, New York, who saved $5,000 from selling sprinkler systems and then working as a lifeguard on Long Island, and used the money to set himself up as a trader of penny stocks. Madoff himself revelled in his own myth. A statue in the grounds of his Palm Beach mansion is of two lifeguards staring out to sea. (We learnt this because last month, some scurrilous thief stole it, only to return it days later with a note attached: "Bernie the Swindler, Lesson: Return stolen property to rightful owners. Signed by – The Educators.")
Madoff's mother also appears to have been a stockbroker, albeit one who fell foul of regulators, who accused her of failing to comply with financial reporting rules in the 1960s. Bernard was born to Sylvia and Ralph Madoff in the tight-knit, mainly Jewish community of Laurelton, Queens on 29 April 1938, and appeared to make little academic impression at Far Rockaway High School or later at the University of Alabama, or Hofstra University, back in Long Island, where he got a degree in political science.
But Madoff Investment Securities, which he founded in 1960, was one of the iconoclastic firms who challenged the New York Stock Exchange's old-school brokers, using aggressive marketing techniques to win clients, and promoting a new era of electronic trading. Madoff became something of a spokesman for these outsiders, and helped create the rival Nasdaq electronic stock exchange, where he later served as chairman. Although many people who came into contact with him on the golf courses of Florida, have described him as aloof, he was clubbable with the right people, and chummy with the finance industry's regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission, supposedly consumers' sharp-toothed watchdog on Wall Street. They would rib each other – Madoff laughingly called enforcers at the SEC "the enemy" when his niece, the glamorous Shana Madoff, married one of them – but the SEC relied on him and other members of his family to advise them on ways to modernise the markets.
Madoff's wife, Ruth, meanwhile, was evolving into the New York society wife. Two years his junior at Far Rockaway, Ruth Alpern had been his childhood sweetheart, an outgoing blonde who was always one of the most popular in her class. At times, she kept an office at the firm, and investigators believe her name is on some transactions and that she may have helped to reconcile the business's bank accounts, though there is no evidence she knew of her husband's fraud. Indeed, the topic of whether she could have been at her husband's side for 50 years without believing something was amiss is now a staple of daytime talk shows. She has not been seen in public since her husband's arrest.
Ruth Madoff mainly busied herself with philanthropic ventures, particularly the couple's charitable foundation, set up in 1998 and a big giver to cancer causes and the arts. In 1996, she executive-edited a cook book, Great Chefs of America Cook Kosher, a vanity project. She would spend time decorating the couple's numerous properties, such as the apartment in Cap d'Antibes on the French Riviera, and in Florida, where their $9.4m winter mansion has five bedrooms and a boat dock for the yacht, The Bull. They joined all the right clubs, moved in all the right circles.
So it is many years since Madoff could have been described as a Wall Street outsider; by the time of his confession, he appeared the grandee. Established, trustworthy. Maybe it was keeping up those appearances that led him into his desperate deceptions, perhaps after an unexpected loss that he hoped to recoup later. Or maybe the deceits began long before that, rooted in those raw early days of trading and the desire to build the business that his mother could not. Investigators are still only at the start of their work.
Appearances are important to Madoff, and employees have numerous tales that suggest an obsessive compulsive disorder. A former secretary has described how he remodelled offices to eliminate semi-circular shapes, detailing how he squared off the interior of his New York office which had moved into the desirable, elliptical skyscraper nicknamed the Lipstick Building. Other stories tell of how he installed CCTV to monitor employees in the London branch (which purportedly managed only a small chunk of Madoff's personal wealth but is at the centre of an inquiry into whether he pushed money offshore). Any chipped paint would have to be filled in with marker pen. He once ripped out a carpet tile that had a pear juice stain on it, and rushed to replace it with a clean spare. The Madoff Investment Securities colour scheme of black and grey was taken to such an extreme that it took on a Soviet feel. There was a strict ban on using blue pens. Black ink only.
Nowhere was Madoff's bizarre behaviour on display more clearly than on the day, a week after his arrest, when the public got the first glimpse of him returning to the Upper East Side after a courthouse tussle over his bail. Of all the things that he was wearing as he marched along the side side of his building, pushing back a swarm of photographers, it wasn't the black diamond-quilted jacket and the baseball cap that caused comment – it was the fixed grin. And if there is anything calculated to cause public outrage, it is the sight of a self-confessed fraudster grinning. Suddenly, Bernard Madoff was public enemy No 1.
At future hearings, where his bail terms have been tightened, he would be escorted to and from the courthouse by US marshals, as protesters circled. One man, camped outside the building where Madoff has been under house arrest for more than a month, angled a placard so it could be seen from the penthouse window: "Bernie, it's not too late to do the right thing. JUMP!" Amid persistent rumours that Russian mob money found its way into the Madoff Ponzi scheme, a panic button has been installed in the apartment, along with 24-hour surveillance, as much to protect him as to check he is not planning to flee. He wears a bullet-proof vest for trips to court.
The fraudster's notoriety is such that trinkets such as pens and rugs and other giveaways emblazoned with the Madoff Investment Securities logo are selling for hundreds of dollars on eBay. A hot sauce called "Bernie in Hell" has been launched by a New York artist. The New York Times, at the weekend, compared him to a psychopath and the Seventies serial killer Ted Bundy.
Madoff never murdered anyone, but the distress he leaves in his wake is huge. Numerous celebrities have given his crime a photogenic face, among them Kevin Bacon, Steven Spielberg and his business partner Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Zsa Zsa Gabor, down a reported $7m. But it goes much, much further. The children of the Long Island Jewish set who relied on Madoff money for their trust funds will probably survive. But baby-boomers who had budgeted on those fictitious monthly accounts to pay their nursing care and medical bills through retirement face a suddenly bleak old age. Ordinary pension funds were among those whose billions were funnelled through intermediaries into Madoff, leaving Connecticut's firefighters among those hit. And the fraud has had a devastating effect on philanthropic enterprises – from human rights organisations rehabilitating former prisoners, to bone marrow donor networks – because many Jewish charities trusted money to Madoff directly or to the unwitting accomplices who handed over their own hedge funds for him to run.
One woman, Sondra Wiener, 74, has put her $900,000 retirement home in Palm Beach up for sale, and her son, 50-year-old Charles, has done the same with the home he built in 1971 on Long Island. Wiener was close to tears when a New York Post reporter spoke to him outside the four-bedroom house. "It's a rotten thing, emotionally devastating to our entire family," he said.
It's not a good time to be selling your home, but that is not what makes this story so memorable. Sondra Weiner is Bernard Madoff's sister; Charles worked at the firm for 30 years. Madoff was scamming even those closest to him.
Investigators are turning their attentions now to Madoff's brother, Peter, seven years his junior, who – although he held no stake in the firm – was a deputy at Madoff Investment Securities, so indispensable that the pair often refused to travel together in case of an accident. Bespectacled and bow-tied, affable and erudite, Peter Madoff collects classic cars almost as enthusiastically as his brother collects watches. Like his brother, he split his time between Long Island and Palm Beach, where he was networker-in-chief. Peter was in charge of the historic stockbroking side of the company, which was always kept separate from the phantom investment business.
It was to Peter that Bernard's two sons notionally reported, as they rose through the ranks. Andrew Madoff, now 44, and brother Mark, 42, have worked with their father all their adult lives. Mark was more deeply enmeshed in designing flashy electronic trading systems. He sat on a string of company boards – although he had to slow down to battle lymphoma earlier this decade – and hobnobbed in the rarefied Core Club, behind an unmarked door a few blocks from the Lipstick Building. The $15,000-a-year club boasts Bill Clinton, private equity billionaire Stephen Schwarzman, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and people from the pinnacle of fashion and food on its membership list. Mark Madoff has just cancelled his.
Both he and Andrew were victims of their father, not his accomplices, their lawyer says. They had "no access to overall financial information about their father's firm". Mark took his money out of the investment arm to fund a divorce from his first wife in 2000 and both sons used outside investment firms to run their own private philanthropic foundations, shielding them from ruin, but Andrew had millions invested with his father.
There was no Hanukkah gathering for the Madoffs. Lawyers are standing in between them all. It was to his brother that Bernard Madoff first confessed his fraud, according to the tale told to Agent Cacioppi, and a day later to his sons, who turned him in. Now Andrew and Mark have been told not to talk to their father or their uncle while investigators pick through who knew what and when, and since all are at least witnesses in the case they must avoid pre-trial contact. There is no suggestion that the FBI has evidence family members knew anything until those confessions.
The FBI and SEC have camped out at Madoff's 17th-floor offices of that lipstick-shaped, salmon-coloured skyscraper. It was here, we know now, that Madoff kept numerous sets of books, and where the code to this extraordinary fraud may finally be deciphered. His sons told the FBI that his investment business was run there, away from the historic trading business carried out on the bustling floors above. He was "cryptic" about the operations on the 17th floor, they said, and there is still no clarity on when he began taking clients' money with the promise of investment.
He ran the investment arm side by side with a trusted lieutenant, Frank DiPascali, whose arrival at the office in jumpers and jeans belied a taut personality. He had been introduced to Madoff a year after graduating from a Catholic high school in Queens 33 years ago. He lives more modestly than his boss: only a five-bed, five-bath house with a pool and cabana on seven acres in the New Jersey suburbs. He's "a blue-collar guy, not a Wall Street master of the universe", says his lawyer, Mark Mukasey, "and he is devastated".
Notes of investigators' leaked interviews with DiPascali describe his answers as "evasive" and "incomprehensible", but he has not been accused of wrongdoing and his lawyer has declined comment on the extent of his knowledge. Investors were told that DiPascali was the man who carried out the complicated trading that was supposedly returning double-digit percentage profits, year in, year out.
Visitors to the 17th floor describe it in almost eerie terms, a place with banks of computers but hardly a trader in sight. Supposedly the hub of a multi-billion-dollar fund, there were barely 20 dedicated employees. The volumes of options trading that Madoff claimed to be doing never showed up on any public exchange or records from the stockbroking side of the company, and no other firm has said it traded with the Madoff's investment business. The FBI believes Madoff may never have properly invested any of the money entrusted to him.
Fifty-billion dollars: $50,000,000,000. No matter how you write it, it is a breathtaking number. Few Wall Street money managers achieve a business on that scale. Madoff did it while having to maintain a fiction of Truman Show scale. For many years, he hid from public view the fact that he was managing other people's money. Even after he registered as an investment adviser, at no point did anyone realise the scale of the funds that were pouring into the black hole on the 17th floor.
How could one man do it? The answer is he did not do it alone. A vast network of fundraisers was assembled among a financial aristocracy spanning three continents. Often secretly, they passed to him billions of dollars, in cash, from acquaintances. None of which is to say these people knew they were aiding and abetting a fraud. They profited handsomely from not asking. Madoff hadn't set himself up as a traditional hedge fund, and didn't charge standard outrageous fees of "two and twenty" – 2 per cent to manage the money and 20 per cent of profits. A string of Madoff's middlemen outsourced vast portions of their own business to Madoff and charged clients handsomely for profits he claimed to have earned them.
But their lives, too, changed at 8.30am on 11 December. One after another, these powerbrokers were forced to admit they had been duped. Now facing catcalls about their ignorance, and lawsuits alleging negligence, these are the blind accomplices who made Madoff.
Carl Shapiro met Madoff 48 years ago. Shapiro was a successful Boston businessman and investor – the city is studded with buildings named in his honour, as he fed some of the fortune from his clothing business into philanthropic gestures. "A friend asked me to meet him, maybe throw him a little business," Shapiro, now 95, told the local paper in Palm Beach the weekend after Madoff's arrest. He handed over a first cheque for $100,000, "and he did very well with it. That was the beginning."
The pair became close. Friends said Madoff was the son Shapiro never had. And in the same way that a mutual acquaintance had introduced the two, Shapiro quickly became a cheerleader for Madoff's investment talents. In Boston, and later in Palm Beach, he steered friends and acquaintances into Madoff Investment Securities, a miracle-grow fund that seemed to nudge a percentage point or two higher most months. Madoff never reported a down year. Even when the stock market was plunging, he reported solid gains. The strategy, Madoff would say vaguely, was to buy shares in blue-chip companies but take out derivatives to mitigate potential losses. Any further inquiry would be met with a pained look, as if someone had asked for the secret formula for Coca-Cola. Still, the returns tasted good, no one reported any problem cashing out, and Bernie had such respectable friends. There was no reason to be suspicious, and every reason to be fearful that Madoff might turn down your investment, leaving you with the harsh choice of a volatile stock market or mundane interest from the bank. In Palm Beach, second home to the East Coast's rich, being in is all. Being turned down was like social death. Madoff hardly needed to solicit investors; they clamoured introductions.
The Palm Beach Country Club was the centre of the financial earthquake. The grand, stucco-walled building sits, secluded behind trimmed hedges, on the Atlantic coast, and members can range over the challenging, perfectly manicured 18-hole golf course designed almost a century ago by Scotsman Donald Ross. Perhaps a third of the club's members had been ushered into the Ponzi scheme...Perhaps a third of its members had been ushered into the scheme via Shapiro and his son-in-law Robert Jaffe. Members' losses probably come close to the billion dollar mark. The Shapiros alone have lost $545m.
The club is the height of exclusivity. As well as the entry fee well into six figures, members are required to contribute to charity. Set up in 1959 by wealthy Jews who had been excluded by the Anglo-Saxon cliques of other clubs, it remains mainly Jewish. Madoff joined Shapiro with a membership in 1996, making local acquaintances there and at the nearby Boca Rio golf club.
It was Jaffe who rang his father-in-law on the day Madoff's arrest became news. "Turn on CNN," he said simply. The revelation was "a knife in the heart," Shapiro said.
Jaffe is a larger than life character. Driving about in his vintage MG, he flaunted the wealth Madoff was bringing him. "The clothing I wear is more cutting edge," he told the Palm Beach Daily News when it profiled stylish residents. "It's a few years ahead of the pack. Once you've had filet mignon, you don't want to go back."
Jaffe set up a company for funnelling investors' money to Madoff. Cohmad Securities – now under investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general, who has subpoenaed Jaffe – proved to be a model for numerous others.
Another of Madoff's blind accomplices was Ezra Merkin, one of the most prominent members of New York's Jewish community, who has spent a charmed life at the intersection of finance and philanthropy. His parents, Hermann and Ursula, had arrived in the US as refugees from Nazi Germany, made a fortune in shipping and on Wall Street, and bestowed millions on projects such as the Fifth Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan and Yeshiva University, where Merkin and Madoff would eventually serve as trustees. "It is not easy to stay on the sidelines while others are busy getting rich," Merkin once wrote – and he had no intention of doing so. Through his hedge fund, Ascot Partners, he raised several billions of dollars of client money which he funnelled towards the extraordinary Madoff, on whose profits he came to rely. Yeshiva University saw $112m wiped out, having let Merkin run its endowment fund. In all, $2.4bn of Merkin-related money has evaporated. The 54-year-old told his clients in a letter after Madoff's arrest that he had invested substantially all their money with the fraudster, that he was "shocked" and that he himself had "suffered major losses from this catastrophe". Their immediate response was one not of sympathy for a family fortune and a personal reputation ruined, but one of fury. What had he been doing to earn his multi-million dollar fees?
Merkin now sits amid a blizzard of lawsuits from investors who say they believe he was managing the money himself, most prominently from New York University, which lost its $3m investment in Ascot and which wants to stop him from liquidating what remains of the fund. In the early days of the New Year, he resigned as chairman of General Motors' car loans arm, GMAC.
The betrayal of Jewish charities and individuals by one of their own has brought a particular brand of condemnation. It has also caused a shudder through the community because of the flecks of anti-Semitism that can be found in some public responses to the scandal. You don't have to read too far into an internet discussion on the subject to see the stereotype of the unscrupulous Jewish financier raised anew.
Ponzi schemes are notoriously concentrated within so-called "affinity groups" – but from the Italian community scammed by Charles Ponzi onwards, they have been scattered across a rainbow of ethnic communities. And in any case, history's greatest Ponzi scheme has sowed its destruction far beyond the Jewish communities of New York and Palm Beach. The biggest single character in the cast list of blind accomplices is a native of Nashville, Tennessee. Walter Noel is patriarch to one of the most famous – and photogenic – families in the world of hedge funds, and the biggest fish in Madoff's poison pond. His share of responsibility for the $50bn in losses: $7.5bn. His annual fee on the money his Fairfield Greenwich investment business was outsourcing to Madoff: at least $250m a year.
The scandal has generated more column inches than the Noels ever managed before 11 December – and that was plenty. With five tall, slender, socialite daughters, all of whom have married well-bred men now working in the family firm, the Noels were gossip page favourites for years. "Glamazons", Vanity Fair magazine described them in a fawning 2002 portrait: "The Noel sisters of Greenwich, Connecticut, are turning tabloid-fodder sister acts (that is, Nicky and Paris Hilton) on their heads. In lieu of dancing on tables, the five Noel women have made a name for themselves by shoring up the virtues of a nearly extinct aristocracy. They're well educated and well-married, and they're raising a pack of well-behaved multilingual children while keeping their string-bikini figures intact." In the testosterone-fuelled world of hedge funds, getting the Noel family Christmas card was a coveted joy. At least until Christmas 2008.
Noel, now 78 but looking a dozen years younger, had been funnelling ever-increasing sums to Madoff for 20 years. The pair became richer and more successful as their businesses grew symbiotically. It was the Noel family enterprise, more than any other, that brought Madoff mayhem to South America, the Middle East and Asia. In Brazil, where Noel's wife, Monica, hails from a wealthy family with Swiss roots, Fairfield employed Bianca Haegler, a niece, as its representative. In Geneva, the private bank UBP marshalled its clients into Fairfield; UBP's London office is run by a family friend.
Meanwhile, one Noel son-in-law, Yanko Della Schiava, is based in Lugano, Switzerland, selling Fairfield Greenwich funds in southern Europe. Philip Toub, whose wedding to Alix Noel in Mustique in 1997 made the society pages, marketed the group's funds in Brazil and the Middle East.
A third, Andres Piedrahita, a Colombian-born banker, ran Fairfield's UK operation and was the most successful fundraiser. Since convincing his father to fund a trip around the world on a cruise ship to combine his university studies with making international contacts, he has lived in Palm Beach, New York, London and Madrid, and all the while keeping in touch with the rich of his native Colombia – where it seems some $200m of local wealth has evaporated with Madoff.
With point-men across the world, and news of Madoff's extraordinary investment performance spreading, wealthy individuals and supposedly sophisticated investment managers scrabbled for access. Austria is reeling from the nationalisation of one of its fastest-growing banks, Vienna-based Bank Medici. Its founder, a 60-year-old called Sonja Kohn – famous for the giant red wig she wore to adhere to her orthodox Jewish faith – denied reports that she had gone into hiding fearing Russian mobsters who may have been among those hit by her $3bn of losses. She said news of Madoff's arrest hit her like a "tsunami".
In the UK, Nicola Horlick, the fund manager dubbed Superwoman for her ability to juggle a career with raising children, saw shares in her latest fund venture plunge after it admitted putting almost 10 per cent of shareholders' assets – about £10m –with Madoff. Horlick knew who was responsible for her losses: US regulators. "I think now it is very difficult for people to invest in things that are meant to be regulated in America, because they have fallen down on the job," she told the BBC. It was a Frenchman who actually took responsibility squarely on his own shoulders.
On a dark Monday evening, 10 days after Madoff's arrest, René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet told the cleaners at his Manhattan office that he wanted them done by 7pm. After they left, the 65-year-old locked the door and returned to his desk. There he swallowed sleeping pills and placed a wastepaper basket beneath his desk to catch blood, before slashing his wrists with a box cutter. Staff found him the next morning, still sitting at his desk, the box cutter on the floor beside him. He had lost $1.4bn of his own and his clients' money, and the responsibility that he felt for their ruin eclipsed even the despair he felt over his own, according to friends and relatives.
One of the most prominent French financiers on Wall Street, a former head of Crédit Lyonnais Securities in the US, he was the scion of an aristocratic French family who would boast that 20 of his ancestors went to the guillotine. His hedge fund, Access International Advisors, enlisted intermediaries with links to the cream of Europe's high society and even royalty to garner clients, and those facing multi-million dollar losses included the continent's richest woman, Liliane Bettencourt, the L'Oreal heiress.
But not everyone trusted Madoff. Far from it. Harry Markopolos, a skinny, slighty nerdy accountant, was the resident maths genius in the offices of Rampart, a Boston investment firm that specialised in trading options. Rampart had heard of Madoff's enviable record back in 1999 and wanted a piece of the action, so Markopolos was handed the task of replicating the stock-and-options trading strategy that Madoff had vaguely but consistently outlined for his investors.
Except, even the maths genius couldn't do it; there is no way to guarantee positive returns every month irrespective of what the stock market is doing. Markopolos said there were only two conclusions. Perhaps Madoff was inflating returns by using an illegal trick called "front running", where the broker puts his own little bet on a share price first, knowing that his customers' order is about to push the price higher. More likely, as Markopolos wrote more than eight years before that confession last month, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi scheme."
He passed his concerns via a contact at the local office of the SEC to the regulator's New York office. They said thanks, but nothing seemed to happen. Over the next few years, Markopolos would act as "an army of one", campaigning to unmask Madoff. Markopolos voraciously gathered facts, figures, rumour and innuendo and continued to deluge the SEC with tip-offs. In part, he hoped to win a reward (under US law, whistleblowers receive a proportion of any fines paid by misbehaving companies, and Markopolos has since turned himself into a freelance investigator encouraging and advising whistleblowers). Mainly, he just wanted to be proved right.
What Markopolos discovered during his campaign was that numerous market players were refusing to do business with Madoff because of the front-running rumours and other concerns. Many looked at the way Madoff's books were audited and shied away. It used a one-person audit firm, Friehling & Horowitz, based in a 13 foot by 18 foot office in a suburb miles outside New York. Saving pennies, Madoff would say, but the notion that this firm could audit a multi-billion dollar investment business struck many as ludicrous.
Several said that if Madoff was legit he would be running a formal hedge fund and pocketing the giant fees, rather than working only for trading commissions. Others had reached a similar conclusion to Markopolos, that the hedging system Madoff claimed to be using to safeguard himself from losses was implausible. It would require options trading on a scale that dwarfed anything going through the official exchanges.
A few were scared off by a 2001 article in the business magazine Barron's, the one time that the industry's scepticism was put into print, but Madoff was largely able to laugh it off. Markopolos was astonished to discover that sophisticated investors could tell him in one breath that they believed Madoff's returns were being faked, and then in the next that, hell, they were investing with him anyway.
Why did the SEC not put a stop to Madoff? Many believe the answer lies in the chumminess between Madoff and the regulators, whom Madoff himself advised. In one of his last acts as chairman of the SEC, Christopher Cox – the hapless former Congressman – ordered an investigation into all the organisation's dealings with Madoff, right down to the relationship between Madoff's niece, Shana, and Eric Swanson. Until 2006, Swanson was an SEC attorney in charge of overseeing Stock Exchange regulation of electronic trading and his team had carried out one of the investigations into Madoff Investment Securities. The pair started dating afterwards, his lawyers say.
Markopolos's allegations became more shrill until, in 2005, he got the full-on probe that he was seeking. His 19-page private submission to the SEC at that point is a masterclass in analysis, and it has been widely circulated on the internet since Madoff's confession. The title of his paper? "The world's largest hedge fund is a fraud."
Under this investigation, Madoff was finally forced to concede that his sideline in investment management had eclipsed the historic stockbroking business. He had been trying to shield the scale of his business from public view, keeping up the appearance that clients were entering an exclusive club, trying to keep below the radar. An angry SEC forced him to register formally as an adviser, and he declared client assets at that point of some $17bn. However, the regulator did not issue the public censure that could have alerted more investors of Madoff's shady behaviour, and never used the power of subpoena to recover the multiple sets of books kept under lock and key on the 17th floor. They should have paid closer attention to one of the passages in Markopolos's opus: "I've found that wherever there is one cockroach in plain sight, many more are lurking behind the corner out of plain view."
"If someone provides you with the wrong set of books, I don't know how you find the real books," Meaghan Cheung said, her eyes welling with tears when a reporter confronted her after the New Year. Markopolos has singled out Cheung, a branch head of the SEC's New York enforcement division at the time of the 2005 investigation, as the person responsible for the regulator's blunder. His comments sparked a media hunt for the 37-year-old mother of two, who quit the SEC last September. "Why are you taking a mid-level staff person and making me responsible for the failure of the American economy?" she said. "I worked very hard for 10 years to make a career, and a reputation, and that has been destroyed in a month."
By contrast, Markopolos's reputation has gone into the stratosphere. However, he is uncomfortable in the limelight, crying sick when Congress called him to testify at a hearing into Madoff. He has received offers from Hollywood, which wants to turn his crusade into a movie. So far, he has demurred. "They'll just add in sex and violence," he told The Boston Globe. "And why would people think I feel good about this?" Markopolos asked in a series of recent interviews. "People think I'm a hero, but I didn't stop him. He stopped himself."
The year 2008 will go down as one of the most brutal in investment history. Even good investments were in trouble, because investors had to pull profits to cover losses elsewhere. Madoff began to get more phone calls. Sorry, Bernie, but I have to take money out. The calls became a flood after the market carnage of September. The money that clients were demanding had long since been handed out to other investors on their way out, and the credit crisis meant new money was no longer flooding through the door. With a growing sense of panic, Madoff did what he had never before had to do: he began to solicit money.
Just before Thanksgiving, a pitch document was drawn up with details of a new fund, which he said he was raising from favoured clients, to take advantage of an oversold market. Ken Langone, a prominent New York investor, got the full charm. "You wouldn't think this guy had a trouble in the world," Langone said, but he demurred. He was turned off, he said later, by the "convoluted" monthly statements handed to investors and by the possibly illegal promise that investors in this new fund would be given preferential treatment over Madoff's other clients.
With redemption requests from clients now totalling $7bn, and barely a few hundred million in the pot, Madoff returned, desperately, to where it had all began 48 years earlier with a cheque for $100,000 – to Carl Shapiro. The men agreed an extraordinary final transaction, a payment to Madoff of $250m. It arrived around 1 December.
"Bernie seemed a little anxious this time," recalled Ruth Shapiro, 91, Carl's wife of 69 years. "He kept calling saying 'I didn't get it, it hasn't come yet, are you sure you sent it?'" The cheque would almost double the size of Shapiro's investment with his long-time friend. In all likelihood, he will never see any of it again.
The prosecutors will file formal charges. Until then, the best account of those final days comes to us via the FBI's Agent Cacioppi, as told to him by Andrew and Mark Madoff, who in turn say they are recounting what their father told them.
On Tuesday of that week, having decided the game was up, Madoff resolved to distribute what was left in the pot not to any of the clients demanding their money, but to employees in early bonuses. He penned $173m in cheques and placed them in a drawer. The next day, his sons, suspicious of their father's peculiar explanation – that the business had made a windfall on recent trading – demanded the truth. Madoff buckled. "I'm not sure I'll be able to hold it together," he told them. At the office, a few hours later, Madoff told them he had already confessed to his brother, Peter, that he was "finished", that he had "absolutely nothing", the business was "all just one big lie" and "basically a giant Ponzi scheme" which had been insolvent for years. He planned to surrender to the authorities the following week, but only after distributing the remainder of the funds to selected employees, family and friends.
Andrew and Mark listened – but did not agree. They called a friend for advice, Martin Flumenbaum, a lawyer, who called federal prosecutors and the SEC on their behalf.
Bernard and Ruth Madoff are still in the penthouse. He is under house arrest, on a $10m bail bond that his wife and brother struggled to afford. He has yet to utter a word in public.
A note he sent round to other residents at 133 East 64th Street reads: "Dear neighbors. Please accept my profound apologies for the terrible inconvenience that I have caused over the past weeks. Ruth and I appreciate the support we have received." So, an apology only for the media scrum, not for his alleged crimes. But, crucially for many victims, he has made no further apologies.
After the arrest, the Madoffs parcelled up Bernard's watches, cufflinks and jewellery and mailed it to relatives and close friends. Prosecutors became apoplectic; the victims' only hope is that Madoff's possessions and personal fortune will help them claw back a little of what they have lost. The trinkets have been returned, and must stay in the apartment under court diktat. But is it possible to see the attempted gifts as a kind of apology, for jobs lost, fortunes dented or evaporated, and trust shattered, at least to a small handful of people? Does Bernie Madoff feel guilt?
It could be years before the full story of Madoff's fraud can be told, but its epilogue is being written. He has become a potent symbol of a need to reform the way Wall Street behaves – and the way government watches Wall Street. Madoff is "a massive fraud that was made possible, in part, because the regulators ... dropped the ball," Barack Obama said last month. "And if the crisis has taught us anything, it's that this failure of oversight ... doesn't just harm individuals. It has the potential to devastate our entire economy."
Wall Street will no longer be allowed to govern itself. Even Alan Greenspan, high priest of laissez-faire, has said he was mistaken to believe investors could be trusted to rein in risky practices. Now we see it even more clearly with Madoff: everyone seemed to be trusting to everyone else to do the due diligence that should have been their own responsibility, even the wise men and the superwomen. A new era of harsher regulation is just around the corner. Wall Street, it seems, simply cannot be trusted.
The debate over the nationalization of the banks
25 February 2009
The United States government has to date handed over some $300 billion in taxpayer funds to more than 400 banks under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) approved by Congress last October. These cash injections are part of a much broader commitment of public funds, including debt guarantees, low-cost loans and other subsidies estimated to total between $7 trillion and $9 trillion.
Nevertheless, US bank losses are mounting and are expected to surge further as the global recession and soaring unemployment undermine trillions of dollars in holdings backed by defaulting consumer loans and commercial real estate. Fourteen banks have been seized by state and federal regulators this year after 25 failed in 2008, and as many as 1,000 more are expected to fail within five years. Banking giants such as Citigroup and Bank of America have suffered mammoth losses and are on the verge of collapse.
The response of the Obama administration has been to announce a new and virtually open-ended bailout program that will likely involve trillions of dollars in additional taxpayer funds. This has not satisfied the financial elite, which wants nothing less than ironclad guarantees that its wealth and power will not suffer as a result of the crisis precipitated by its own speculative policies. Bank stocks have continued to plummet since Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced the administration's financial rescue plan on February 10.
In the face of this mounting disaster, official public debate has increasingly focused on the possibility that some major banks could end up under government ownership. The threat of "nationalization" has become headline news.
The Obama administration has issued repeated statements affirming its support for private ownership of the banks and its aversion to government control. At the same time, it has been forced by the worsening financial crisis to announce measures that will increase the government's stake in major banks, most immediately Citigroup.
This is despite tortuous efforts by his administration and that of his predecessor, George Bush, to structure their bailouts of the banks in such a way as to limit to the greatest extent possible government ownership and control, so as to protect the investments of big shareholders and bondholders.
On Monday, the administration announced a new scheme whereby the government will convert some of the preferred stock it presently holds in the banks—considered by investors to be a form of debt—into common stock, or equity, in order to shore up the capital position of floundering firms like Citigroup and relieve them of dividends they owe the government on its holdings of their preferred shares. In the case of Citigroup, this means a savings for the bank of $2.25 billion a year.
At the same time, the statement issued by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and three other regulatory agencies sought to reassure the banks that the government would avoid gaining majority control. It declared that "the strong presumption of the Capital Assistance Program is that banks should remain in private hands."
The degree to which discussion of government policy has centered, not on the social needs of the masses of people, but rather on financial issues related to the interests of the very wealthy who make their fortunes on Wall Street—a miniscule segment of the population—is itself extraordinary. It testifies to the reality of class relations in America and the domination of a financial aristocracy over every aspect of social and political life.
Prominent among those advocating the nationalization of some banks as a temporary measure is a section of liberal economists and commentators. Their position is summed up by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who published an op-ed piece Monday entitled "Banking on the Brink." Krugman cites approvingly a recent comment by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said, "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring."
"I agree," Krugman writes, and proceeds to defend temporary government ownership by declaring that "banks must be rescued... The collapse of Lehman Brothers almost destroyed the world financial system, and we can't risk letting much bigger institutions like Citigroup and Bank of America implode."
Without directly saying so, Krugman alludes to the fact that major banks are insolvent. He points out that the combined market value of Citigroup and Bank of America is less than $30 billion. To date the US government has pumped over $90 billion of taxpayer money into the two banks.
But he insists that "long-term government ownership isn't the goal ... major banks would be returned to private control as soon as possible." He suggests that instead of calling such temporary government takeovers "nationalization," they should be termed "preprivatization."
There is nothing remotely progressive, let alone socialist, in such proposals. They are driven entirely by a desire to defend the interests of the financial elite, arguing that temporary government ownership is the most efficient means toward that end. In practice, such a policy would mean using public resources to pay off the bad debts of the banks so they could be restored to profitability and then returned to private hands, allowing the CEOs and big investors to resume amassing their private fortunes.
Krugman's position demonstrates that liberalism is a variety of bourgeois politics, based on the defense of the profit system. He asserts that the goal is to maintain private ownership of the banks. But why should that be the goal of public policy?
The economic and social catastrophe that is enveloping the world is the inevitable product of the private ownership and control of the financial system and the economy as a whole. The present crisis is the outcome of three decades in which the US ruling class, in an attempt to offset the decline in the global position of American capitalism and the fall of profit rates in basic industry, has used its control of finance to enrich itself by diverting resources from manufacturing into various forms of financial speculation.
The working class has suffered an immense decline in its social position, while a financial aristocracy has arisen by creating a mountain of debt and paper values, which has now come crashing down. All of the various schemes devised to bail out the banks, including that advocated by liberal proponents of temporary nationalization, seek to make the working class pay for the disaster.
The banking system is the most acute expression of the inherent anarchy and irrationality of the capitalist system, which is rooted precisely in the contradiction between private ownership of the means of production and finance and the social, and global, character of production.
The growing government stake in the banks and the possibility that it may be forced to assume control of some major institutions raise basic questions. In whose interests is this control to be exercised? At whose expense? At what cost? Under whose control? And for what purpose?
The crisis requires not a temporary government takeover to bail out the bankers, but a socialist and revolutionary policy directed against the entrenched power and economic stranglehold of the financial aristocracy. What is required is the nationalization of the banks without compensation to the big shareholders and bondholders, the transformation of the banks and financial institutions into public utilities under the democratic control of the working class, and the redirection of financial policy to meet the needs of the people for good-paying jobs, housing, education, health care and a secure retirement, rather than the drive for profit and the accumulation of personal wealth by a privileged few.
The prerequisite for carrying out this policy is the independent political mobilization of the working class, in the United States and internationally, in a struggle for political power. Only a workers' government—a government of, by and for the working class—will implement such a program.
Barry Grey
The author also recommends:
The case for nationalizing the banks
[19 January 2009]
In address to Congress
Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout
By Patrick Martin
25 February 2009
In his first presidential address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama defended the ongoing federal bailout of the banks and pledged that even greater sums would be funneled from the US Treasury to support Wall Street.
The nationally-televised speech Tuesday night had two main themes. Obama sought to defuse the enormous public hostility to the financial interests responsible for the deepening economic crisis, declaring that he could not "govern out of anger."
And he advanced a reactionary nationalistic rationale for his major domestic policy initiatives on energy, health care and education, going so far as to suggest that young people who drop out of high school were committing a crime against the country.
The speech was suffused with patriotism and invocations of the supposed unique greatness of American society, a tone which contrasted sharply with the stark character of the economic crisis that he was compelled to acknowledge, and the failings in health care and education that he outlined.
It was an awkward straddle to shift from celebrating America as "the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history" to declaring that under his administration the American government would no longer torture people—as though such a verbal rejection of barbarism were something to be proud of.
The first half of the speech was devoted to the economic crisis and the measures announced by the Obama administration over the past five weeks, including a second round of the bank bailout, the passage of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill and bailout proposals for the auto and housing industries.
In response to criticism from Wall Street interests—echoed recently by former president Bill Clinton—that his characterization of the economic crisis was too negative, Obama was at pains to espouse a rather forced optimism about the direction of the US economy.
"While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken," he said, "though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
There was no attempt to provide a rational basis for this supposed confidence in the future of the capitalist system, which faces the greatest crisis in a century. Instead, Obama attempted to blame the American people for the crisis, as he did in his inauguration speech, and thus shift the responsibility away from the American capitalist class.
"Now, if we're honest with ourselves," he said, "we'll admit that for too long we have not always met these responsibilities—as a government or as a people... we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before."
This invocation of dual authorship of the crisis, the government and the people, is deliberately crafted to exclude the most important social category: class. It was not the "people" who created the multi-trillion-dollar casino on Wall Street, who profited from hedge funds, CDOs, credit-default swaps and other speculative devices.
Working people had neither the resources nor the demented drive for personal wealth accumulation required to participate in the looting spree conducted by the American financial elite over the past three decades. Any account of the crisis that equates bankrupt billionaire financiers and foreclosed working class homeowners as equally "irresponsible" is a travesty.
Obama claimed that his number one priority was to create jobs, although the number of jobs purportedly created by the economic stimulus bill, 3.5 million over two years, would put less than one third of today's unemployed back to work, let alone the millions who are expected to lose their jobs in the coming months as the recession worsens.
He declared that his administration would "act with the full force of the federal government" to prop up the major banks—a far greater commitment than has been made to keep workers in their jobs or homes, let alone improve their conditions of life.
He then added, "this plan will require significant resources from the federal government--and yes, probably more than we've already set aside." That constituted a preliminary announcement that another Wall Street bailout is in the works, on top of the $700 billion already approved for handover to the financial interests.
Obama acknowledged that the American people were "infuriated by the mismanagement" of Wall Street CEOs and speculators, and he admitted, "I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions." But he argued, "in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger or yield to the politics of the moment."
It is worth pointing out the extraordinary class bias expressed here. The American capitalist class has triggered the greatest financial catastrophe in history, one which has plunged not only the United States but the entire world economy into a slump of enormous dimensions. Millions face the loss of their jobs, their pensions, their ability to send their children to college. But, says Obama, they must not hold a grudge against those responsible!
He closed the first half of his speech with a brazen lie. "I will do whatever it takes" to revive the financial system, he said, then added, "It's not about helping banks—it's about helping people."
The second half of Obama's speech—except for a final brief survey of foreign policy—was an elaboration of three major domestic policy initiatives—on energy, health care and education. These are issues of vital concern to the vast majority of working people, but Obama made the case for his policies on patriotic grounds, not those of social need.
He claimed that the federal government must not "supplant" private enterprise, but assist it by developing "clean, renewable energy," addressing "the crushing cost of health care," which is bankrupting both individuals and businesses, and expanding the education of the future American work force.
Whatever the illusions of Obama's liberal apologists, there is nothing remotely progressive about an argument for reorganizing health care or education based on improving the international competitiveness of American capitalism.
There is a logic to politics, and the American nationalism constantly invoked by Obama leads inexorably to imperialist war overseas and the repression of social discontent at home.
This was expressed in perhaps the most chilling passage of the speech, when he declared, "dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country." This was followed by a call for "a renewed spirit of national service" and the passage of legislation to expand programs that pay for college education for youth who join the military or enroll in other government service programs.
The real meaning of this extraordinary statement can be summarized as follows: Young people who drop out of school are not victims of a social crisis produced by the failure of the profit system. On the contrary, they are criminals who are undermining the viability of American capitalism by their refusal to be educated to the level required to become productive (i.e., to generate profits for the capitalist class). And they will pay for their "crime" by being drafted into the military to serve as cannon fodder in the imperialist wars which Obama, like Bush, will continue and escalate.
Counterpunch Vol. 16, No. 3, Feb. 1-15, 2009
Economics for a Full World
By Paul Craig Roberts
The first two parts in this series deal with economics within the existing paradigm. This third and final part deals with the economics that is omitted from the paradigm. The omitted economics is so important that the omission indicates the need for a new paradigm.
The basic problem is that economics does not measure all the costs, and the omitted costs might be the most important costs. Since economics does not measure all the costs, economists cannot know whether growth is economic or uneconomic. The economist Herman Daly, for example, asks if the ecological and social costs of growth have grown larger than the value of the increase in production.
The costs that are left out of the computation of Gross Domestic Product are the depletion of natural capital, such as oil and mineral resources and fisheries, and the pollution of air, water and land resources.
Economists do a poor job of adjusting economic theory to developments brought by the passage of time. Just as capital theory originated prior to the income tax and free-trade theory originated at a period in history when capital was internationally immobile and tradable goods were based on climate and knowledge differences, economists’ neglect of the ecosystem as a finite, entropic, nongrowing and materially closed system dates from an earlier “empty world.”
In an empty world, man-made capital is scarce and nature’s capital is plentiful. In an empty world, the fish catch is limited by the number of fishing boats, not by the remaining fish population, and petroleum energy is limited by drilling capability, not by geological deposits. Empty-world economics focuses on the sustainability of man-made capital, not on natural capital. Natural capital is treated as a free good. Using it up is not treated as a cost but as an increase in output.
Modern economic theory is based on “empty-world” economics. But, in fact, today the world is full. In a “full world,” the fish catch is limited by the remaining population of fish, not by the number of fishing boats, which are man-made capital in excess supply. Oil energy is limited by geological deposits, not by the drilling and pumping capacity of man-made capital. In national income accounting, the use of man-made capital is depreciated, but the use of nature’s capital has no cost. Therefore, the using up of natural capital always results in economic growth.
For example, the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico from fertilizer runoff from chemical fertilizer farming are not counted as a cost against the increase in agricultural output from chemical farming. The brown clouds that reduce light over large areas of Asia are not included as costs in the production of energy from coal. Economists continue to assume that the only limits to growth are labor, manmade capital, and consumer demand. In fact, the critical limit is ecological.
Nature’s resources cannot be replicated or regenerated like man-made capital. These real limits to growth are both neglected and denied by economic theory.
Modern economics is based on a “production function,” associated with Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz, two Nobel prizewinners. A production function explains the relationship between inputs and outputs. The Solow-Stiglitz production function assumes that manmade capital is a substitute for nature’s capital. Therefore, as long as man-made capital can be reproduced, there are no limits to growth. As the economist James Tobin (another Nobel prizewinner) and William Nordhaus put it in 1972, the implicit assumption is that “reproducible [man-made] capital is a near perfect substitute for land and other exhaustible resources.”
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, one of the world’s most distinguished mathematical economists (now deceased) destroyed the Solow-Stiglitz production function, dismissing it as a “conjuring trick,” but economists have nonetheless kept this production function close to their chests, because it is a mathematical way of saying that ecological limits on economic growth do not exist. Nature has no role in the game. (See Herman Daly, Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007).
Modern economics has turned economic growth into an ideology, just as free trade has become an ideology. The Solow-Stiglitz production function is a false explanation of how inputs produce outputs. In contrast with the Solow-Stiglitz absurdity, GeorgescuRoegen made it clear that production is the transformation of resources into useful products and into waste products. Labor and man-made capital are agents of transformation, while natural resources are what are transformed into useful products and waste products. Man-made capital and natural capital are complements, not substitutes. The Solow-Stiglitz production function, the basis of modern economics, is fantasy.
The real question is whether the world’s remaining natural resources and the “sinks” for waste products are sufficient to sustain the continuation of economic growth as traditionally understood, and its expansion to underdeveloped countries.
Environmentalists and ecological economists are aware that today the limits to growth include the natural environment. Even politicians are aware, as they have imposed laws and regulations designed to limit pollution.
Over the course of American history, economic growth has made income inequality acceptable, because economic growth, as President Kennedy put it, is “a tide that lifts all boats.” What becomes of a society based on the rise in real incomes when ecology imposes itlimits? Can statistics forever disguise that the costs outweigh the benefits?
Can a society based on children doing better economically than their parents survive when policy mistakes together with ecological limits disrupt this traditional outcome?
There are social costs associated with the failure of economics to account for the full costs of production and with the integration of all countries into a “global economy.” For many countries, being integrated into the global economy means that the society loses control over itself. Entire occupations and ways of life are wiped away as specific countries are forced to forego diversification and to specialize in the products that globalism dictates, regardless of the needs and wants of the domestic population.
Economic globalism is far in advance of global government. As Herman Daly writes, globalism is the “space into which transnational corporations move to escape regulation by national governments.” Economic globalism in the absence of global government permits transnational corporations to escape accountability.
This means that today corporations are escaping accountability for costs that they impose on the rest of the world. If these “externalized” costs were included in their cost of production, would there be any basis for CEOs to be paid 300, 400, or 500 times the pay of a production employee?
If ecology imposes limits on growth, ladders of upward mobility cease to function. How would society distribute income in order to ensure social peace? This new distribution would certainly require the end of the current large differences, but would people be locked into place, requiring luck and extraordinary ability to rise?
It is possible that some new plague, natural or man-made, will resurrect an empty world, a world empty as well of natural capital. Just as plague destroyed the Mongol Empire, plague could destroy science and technology, making it difficult for humanity to recover economically from depleted and hard-to-reach natural resources.
In the founding days of the discipline of economics, Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall endeavored to explain reality in order that policy might improve the human condition. Whether they succeeded or failed, they were sincere. Today, economists play games with assumptions and equations. Smith and Marshall were interested in truth and its discovery. Economists today are interested in money, and they provide apologies for “globalism” that bring grants to their departments from transnational corporations. Today a person who speaks economic truth has no future in the economics department of a university dependent on outside money.
If economics is to serve humankind, the limits imposed by ecological resources must be acknowledged. At a minimum, this requires junking the Solow-Stiglitz production function and substituting that of GeorgescuRoegen. Externalities are not very important in an “empty world,” but in a “full world” ignored externalities can offset the value of increased output. When the last species is gone, how is it replenished? How are exhausted oil and mineral deposits refilled? How are destroyed rain forests replanted? How are polluted air, water, and oceans reclaimed?
Unless one believes in science fiction, the answer to these questions is only through the passage of time, in some cases millions of years. To treat resources created by nature over millions of years as devoid of costs other than the costs of extraction is absurd. If economics is to be of any use to humanity, it must cease being absurd. CP
Paul Craig Roberts has a B.S. from Georgia Tech, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia. As assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, his policy innovations cured the stagflation that destroyed Jimmy Carter’s presidency. He can be reached at PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com.
January 5, 2009
Somber Thoughts for the New Year
Will There be a Recovery?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Economists will scoff at the question in the title. But that’s because they are trying to fit the present into the past.
In the past recoveries were routine, because recessions were temporary restraints resulting from the Federal Reserve putting the brakes on an overheating economy. By restraining the supply of money and credit, the Fed caused inventory buildup, layoffs, and a halt to price rises and union wage demands. With the economy cooled by unemployment, the Fed would take off the brakes. Interest rates would decline, money would flow, consumer demand would rise and workers would be called back to the factories.
In those days when workers borrowed to spend, they were borrowing against rising real wages from rising productivity. In economic downturns, few workers actually lost their jobs. They were laid off from their jobs for temporary periods. Workers seldom lost their homes or cars, thanks to union funds and unemployment benefits.
Today the situation is different. In the 21st century real wages have not risen. Workers have spent more by accepting deteriorating household balance sheets. They have maxed out their credit cards and spent the equity in their homes. Imitators of the US government, American consumers borrow to pay their bills.
The expansion of household debt relative to income created the illusion that the economy was sound. But the consumer economy was as much of a credit-based bubble as the real estate bubble and the financial sector bubble. The economy has lost its real basis.
Today it is difficult to stimulate consumer demand by lowering interest rates. Consumers are too heavily in debt to borrow any more. Financial institutions are too impaired to want to lend to anyone except those who don’t need to borrow. As the Keynesian macroeconomists used to say, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”
And there’s another problem. Much of what American consumers purchase today is made offshore. Stimulating consumer demand in America puts factories back to work, but those factories are located elsewhere in the world.
How does an economy consume more than it produces? Previously, this question applied only to poor third world countries. These countries would consume by the grace of World Bank loans. From time to time they would pay for their consumption by being put through an IMF restructuring program that would curtail their consumption to make them repay their loans by forced saving.
The United States has so far avoided such humiliation, because its currency is the world money. The US has been able to borrow endlessly, because it can pay its debts in its own currency.
This ability might be coming to an end. The US has been using up the bulk of the world’s supply of saving for years in order to finance its consumption. Considering the outlook for the US economy and dollar, the productive nations of the world and those with oil have more dollars and dollar-denominated assets than they want. The US, with its collapsing economy, its bailouts of financial institutions, and its wars, is facing the largest government budget deficit in its history, both in absolute amount and as a percentage of national income. The easy monetary policy, which the Fed hopes will arrest deflation, threatens inflation and further deterioration in the dollar. Foreigners simply do not want to lend more large sums to a country that, from all appearances, has no way to close its trade and budget deficits. They certainly do not want to lend when the interest rate offered is close to zero and the reserve currency status of the dollar is in doubt.
Economists and the policy-makers they advise are thinking in the past, a time when low interest rates stimulated consumer and investment demand, thus lifting the economy. Today the low interest rates threaten the dollar, discourage foreigners from lending more to the US, and deprive Americans of interest income necessary to their ability to pay their bills.
In the second half of the 20th century, American economic supremacy was a gift of World War II, which destroyed the productive capacity of the rest of the developed world. American economic supremacy also owes much to communism in Russia and China and to socialism in India, which rendered these large countries economically impotent. The United States did not have to compete for its economic hegemony. It simply inherited it from the choices made by the rest of the world.
The situation is different today. Unlike the US, other countries are free of the hubris of being the “indispensable nation.” They know how hard it is to be successful and do not treat success as their birthright. They do not give away their economy for nebulous foreign policy goals or for short-term profits. They look ahead 20, 30 years while America’s CEOs look to the next quarter’s profits.
The United States is walking on quicksand. It is dependent on foreigners for the funding to conduct the day-to-day operations of its government. Its economy is a hollow shell reduced to dependence on a financial sector that is discredited worldwide. America’s government believes that its foreign wars of aggression are more important than any domestic needs, including the health care of its population.
Now that its supply route to feed its war of aggression in Afghanistan is threatened, the American government has the delusion that it will be able to supply its army in Afghanistan through thousands of miles of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia. Only a government totally oblivious to reality would imagine that Russia’s Putin, whose nose is rubbed in excrement every day by the US government, will permit America to transit Russian territory to resupply US imperial legions in Afghanistan.
What we are witnessing is a once great power engaging in fantasy to disguise from itself that it is a failed state.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest