What Does the Media Do?

Frederick J. Sheehan is the author of Panderer to Power: The Untold Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession (McGraw-Hill, 2009), which was translated and republished in Chinese (2014). He is researching a book about Ben Bernanke. He writes a blog at www.AuContrarian.com.

What do reporters do all day? In "Exclusive!" "Shocking!" "Extra, Read All About It!" breaking news, AuContrarian.com  published the damning testimony of (in 2008 - in all cases) Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, and New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner in "Sell Financial Stocks - and Bonds" (September 5, 2014). Quoting from their own words, from the "The Plaintiff's Corrected Proposed Finding of Fact," in Starr International Co. v. United States,the trio broke the law when they nationalized AIG, and, showed they had no idea what they were doing.             Now, those conclusions are opinion. And as stated in "Sell Financial Stocks - and Bonds" the evidence is the "Plaintiff's case, of course, and protests will be aired on the witness stand starting in late September." (The upcoming trial is discussed in the article.)             The question of the day is: why hasn't a media organization written about this? A search through Google, etc. came up with nothing. That is not definitive, but if one media outlet gets hold of an important story, the others follow.             The Wall Street Journal published a story on August 26, 2014, which made it plain the "The Plaintiff's Corrected Proposed Finding of Fact" was in the public domain. From the story: Mr. Bernanke is quoted making the statement in a document filed on August 22 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims as part of a lawsuit linked to the 2008 government bailout of insurance giant AIG."             The Bernanke quote was his standard: "I stopped the worst financial crisis since [fill in the blank]." He has lived off this assertion since 2009, never providing evidence. Bernanke's quotes are from - you may have guessed - page one of the document.             Why didn't anyone read through the 99 pages? Page one was the least newsworthy of all. Why didn't other media outlets display even a modicum of their self-acclaimed "investigative journalism" and call court? Will they cover the trial? Starr International Co. v. United States is set to start September 29.

Sell Financial Stocks - and Bonds

Frederick J. Sheehan is the author of Panderer to Power: The Untold Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession (McGraw-Hill, 2009), which was translated and republished in Chinese (2014). He is researching a book about Ben Bernanke. He writes a blog at www.AuContrarian.com.

RESERVE YOUR SEATS: On August 26, 2014, for what seems the fiftieth time, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected the U.S. government's attempt to extinguish Starr International Co. v. United States. Judge Thomas Wheeler said the case brought by Hank Greenberg's AIG (specifically, Starr International Co., which owned 12.5% of the shares on September 15, 2008) will go to trial on September 29, 2014. Wheeler stated: "The complexity of the submissions and the factual disagreements strongly point to the need for a trial." According to Reuters, "a U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman declined to comment." On the other hand, David Boies, the Attorney of Record from Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, representing Starr International, did comment: "The decision speaks for itself." Former AIG Chairman Hank Greenberg has sued the U.S. government for $25 billion as compensation for the shares owned by Starr International. According to Reuters, "The trial is expected to last six weeks.")

:           The news sounds reassuring: "U.S. bank regulators plan to adopt rules on [September 3, 2014] forcing big banks to hold more assets that they could sell easily in a credit crunch, a requirement that is closely linked to the experience of the 2007-2009 financial crisis." It is possible the rules will work.

            However, no formula will capture rising or falling confidence in a financial company at some future date. We are vectoring towards another 2008. Confidence, on the part government and Federal Reserve officials, financial institutions, and the public, are intertwined. When financial institutions are afraid to lend to each other liquid assets will be held for dear life.

            There are two topics in store. First, changes to financial institution bankruptcy law may prompt a bank run. Second, depositions in Starr International Company, Inc. v. United States [the AIG lawsuit - see: "David Boies vs. Citizen Ben S. Bernanke," and "The Professor Who Did Not Save the World"] should awaken investors to our "policy makers" disintegration when we needed a leader. (It is significant when the bureaucratic meritocracy rose to positions of leadership, it changed its role to that of "policymakers." That it did not and does not want to lead is the reason it is spent.)

            In the discussion about financial institution bankruptcy (topic number one), it is well to keep in mind consequences are magnified by topic number two. As a footnote, it is inconceivable the government and Fed models, such as those used to calculate the September 3, 2014, bank liquidity rules, include an exponential factor that kicks in when the combined worries of a Dodd-Frank "call" and a heavy-handed government rescue mission hit simultaneously.

            The changes to financial firm bankruptcy are not new. They are part of the Dodd-Frank legislation. After taking a poll (of three) it was agreed investors and bank depositors are not conscious of the changes. ("Conscious of" - banks may have sent notices, 10Ks and certainly security offerings served notice, but memories fade.)

Since this is not new, a summary will be brief. It is also a transcription of Paul Singer's description at the Grant's Interest Rate Observer conference in April 2012. Singer is CEO of Elliot Management Corporation and a lawyer. He explained: "Dodd-Frank radically changed bankruptcy law to enable the FDIC to seize financial companies which are thought to be in danger of default. Prior law for decades required, of course, actual default or a voluntary filing by management. The seizure process in Dodd-Frank takes two - count them - two days, and is essentially unreviewable and unappealable. The FDIC is also ordered, pursuant to Dodd-Frank, to toss out management and seek damages from people, including third parties, who are 'responsible' for the financial condition of the troubled company. It also enables the FDIC to transfer assets willy-nilly out of the corporate entities where they reside, thus making the analysis of one's counterparty impossible, and to discriminate among classes of creditors similarly situated if the FDIC thinks it will fulfill some higher good.... Thus creditors, counterparties, clearing customers and trading partners of financial companies which become troubled, post Dodd-Frank, have only one rational response to potential trouble or perceived trouble, given the opacity and leverage I have mentioned before: instantly stop trading, sell claims, pull assets, basically run for the hills."

            Now, for the bad news: The depositions in Starr International v. United States show a government that did not wait for Dodd and Frank to muster 10,000 pages (and counting) of bureaucratic snooping. In the pinch, Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and (then) New York Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner acted willier and nillier than (we may hope) the FDIC will behave, and without legal authority (as you will read below), during the 2008 financial crisis.  

The public view was described last week by Reuters: "The bailout saved AIG from [the possibility of] filing for bankruptcy. The Federal government took 92% of AIG's shares in return for $152 billion that the Fed and Treasury eventually pumped into the insurer." [Bracketed comment in Reuters dispatch added. - FJS]

Reading "The Plaintiff's Corrected Proposed Finding of Fact," it looks as though the bailout forced AIG into an unnecessary bankruptcy; hence the bracketed insertion in the Reuters description above. This is the Plaintiff's case, of course, and protests will be aired on the witness stand starting in late September.

Note #1: the wording from the Finding of Fact is sometimes what a layman may call "telegraphic;" I have left it as is. Note #2: Only a handful of the Findings of Facts are discussed below. There are well over 100. The legal case may address others. 

Returning to the scene of the confusion, then-New York Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner described the drama (in deposition) on September 15, 2008: "Of the twenty-five largest financial institutions at the start of 2008, thirteen had either failed (Lehman, WaMu), received government help to avoid failure (Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Citi, BofA), merged to avoid failure (Countrywide, Bear, Merrill, Wachovia), or transformed their business structure to avoid failure (Morgan Stanley, Goldman.)" 

The United States (as stated in the lawsuit) would not hear of outside parties that were willing to bridge or supply capital needed by AIG. Quoting the Finding of Fact: "Sovereign wealth funds, including the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and the Chinese Investment Corporation (CIC) expressed interest in investing in AIG."

Specifically, "The Chinese Investment Corporation (CIC) expressed interest in investing in AIG. Defendant discouraged the CIC and representatives of the Chinese Government from assisting AIG. At 12:25 p.m. on September 16, 2008, [it was relayed to Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson].... CIC was 'prepared to make a big investment in AIG, but would need Hank to call [Chinese Vice Premier] Wang Qishan.' The Chinese 'were actually willing to put up a little bit more than the total amount of money required for AIG.'" [Italics added. - FJS]

            "On September 16, 2008, [Under Secretary of International Affairs David] McCormick spoke to Paulson about the Chinese interest in investing in AIG. McCormick then told [Taiya] Smith [Paulson's deputy chief of staff and executive secretary] that Treasury "did not want the Chinese coming in at this point in time on AIG."

"Later that day, Smith met with Chinese Government officials in California during Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade in Yorba Linda, California. During that meeting, 'all [the Chinese officials] wanted to talk about was AIG.' Smith spent one or two hours explaining what was happening with AIG. She conveyed the message that Treasury did not want the Chinese to invest in AIG." [Italics added - FJS]

Senator Hillary Clinton took time off from her presidential campaign to save the floundering insurance company: ""On September 17, 2008, United States Senator Hillary Clinton called Paulson "on behalf of Mickey Kantor, who had served as Commerce secretary in the Clinton administration and now represented a group of Middle Eastern investors. These investors, Hillary said, wanted to buy AIG. 'Maybe the government doesn't have to do anything,' she said.'" Paulson told Senator Clinton, 'this was impossible unless the investors had a big balance sheet and the wherewithal to guarantee all of AIG's liabilities.'"

Since the price of oil was descending from its recent high of $150 a barrel, it was worth investigating whether they had "a big balance sheet." As for "the wherewithal to guarantee all of AIG's liabilities," Paulson had no idea what the liabilities were worth - he could not explain to counsel why the government seized AIG: "Paulson: The 'taking of equity in companies that receive government assistance' is 'a punitive condition.'"
 

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson

Several outside parties were calculating values, but from the evidence, no one within "The United States" did so. None of the witnesses could tell David Boies where the "79.9% of AIG shareholder's equity" - the original figure wrought - came from. (Geithner: "I am not certain I understand the reason why it was not more than that. I don't know why it was not less than that." Paulson: "I didn't focus on how that number was determined, although I clearly focused on the number and remember discussing it." FRBNY: "did not conduct an independent analysis regarding the appropriate terms for Government assistance to AIG." Bernanke: A. "I don't know." Bernanke left as he entered - a space-cadet, paper-shuffler.)

There were, however, several parties that calculated the value of "AIG," from different perspectives and for different reason.

For instance: "According to BlackRock, an independent advisor working on behalf of AIG, 'Collateral posted to counterparties under the CDS in the portfolio is over $29 billion, far in excess of the projected net cash flows in BlackRock's stress case.' BlackRock estimated that AIG's projected net cash flows for the life of the CDS contracts, discounted at LIBOR, ranged between negative $7.3 billion in a base case and negative $15.2 billion in a stress case."

Also, "New York State Superintendent of Insurance Dinallo testified that even 'if there had been a run on the securities lending program with no Federal rescue, our detailed analysis indicates that the AIG life insurance companies would not have been insolvent'" [Italics added. - FJS]

In addition: "KKR's [Kohlberg, Kravis - FJS] Derrick Maughan provided sworn testimony that if 'AIG, the company, or the Fed as lender of last resort, had wished they could have stabilized the company through Government invention support [sic], and then introduced private capital.'"

There were other avenues offered to prevent AIG's nationalization: "BlackRock 'presented three options for FRBNY to consider.... [This included] counterparties cancelling their credit default swaps and selling the underlying CDOs to an FRBNY-financed SPV, for total consideration of par, comprised of previously posted collateral, cash, and mezzanine note in the SPV'; the obligation to perform under the credit default swaps 'transferred from AIG to an SPV guaranteed by the FRBNY'; and creation of an 'SPV to purchase the underlying CDOs from AIGFP's counterparties, in connection with a termination of the related credit default swaps'"

Apparently, no option matched nationalization. New York State was ready to save AIG. "Around noon on September 15, 2008, New York Governor David Paterson announced that he had 'directed' the New York State Insurance Department to permit AIG to access approximately $20 billion in liquid assets from certain AIG insurance subsidiaries. He also urged the federal government to be involved in some type of arrangement, whereby AIG would have the necessary resources and bridge loans to tide AIG over until it could resolve its liquidity problems."

"On September 16, 2008, Dinallo reiterated Governor Paterson's offer to allow AIG to upstream $20 billion from its insurance subsidiaries. Geithner responded, "No, we're good." As a result, Dinallo was 'led to believe definitively that we were no longer part of the fix.'" "Good" at what?

If you ever watched Chairman Bernanke brush aside Congressional inquiries about the Federal Reserve exceeding its authority during testimony, he would invoke Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. This always shut the congressman up, even though, on at least two occasions, he leaned back for a Fed staff member to remind him the number of the section: "13(3)."

In the Finding of Fact, Paulson and Geithner are quoted far more than Bernanke except for some hysterical recollections, including: "September and October of 2008 was the worst financial crisis in global history, including the Great Depression." That could be true, but is a wild assertion without support (which Bernanke has never in his life supplied), a successful tactic that guided Time magazine to name him Thing of the Year.  

            On the other hand, Tim Geithner offered a more convincing assessment, that "2008" was "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." Chairman Bernanke accomplished a rare feat. He was a less reliable witness than Tim Geithner.

Another example of Bernanke's fevered understanding: "Of the 13 most important financial institutions in the United States, 12 were at risk of failure within a period of a week or two." He said this at least once before, when he testified during the FCIC investigation. After the FCIC transcript was released, it was noted this was a ridiculous comment. Yet, he persists. If the government approached every financial institution's potential insolvency as it did AIG, the government would have owned 6,000 banks in three days' time.

One finding shows AIG's nationalization - the government acquiring equity ownership from shareholders - was an ad lib operation by the trio. The finding states: "The Federal Reserve had no authority to purchase or hold equity," the facts include (there are many more):

Geithner: "Under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, the Fed is prohibited from taking equity or unsecured debt positions in a firm".

Bernanke: "The Federal Reserve is authorized under the Federal Reserve Act to extend credit in various forms, but is not authorized to purchase equity securities of financial institutions."

Bernanke: "We had only one tool, and that tool was the ability of the Federal Reserve under 13(3) authority to lend money against collateral. Not to put capital into a company but only to lend against collateral."

Paulson, referring to the Federal Reserve: "They legally couldn't do preferred. They legally could only make a loan."

 "FRBNY General Counsel Thomas Baxter wrote to Federal Reserve General Counsel Scott Alvarez confirming "we agree that there is no power" for the Federal Reserve "to hold AIG shares."

"FRBNY's independent auditor Deloitte: "FRBNY cannot legally control a commercial company, and therefore it is not appropriate for them to consolidate an entity it cannot legally own."

Another Finding eliminates the only other legal conduit for AIG's nationalization. "In September 2008, Treasury had no authority to purchase or hold equity." Some of the many facts that confirm Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner broke the law. Nay, they trampled our protection from tyranny with jackboots. Facts follow: 

"The "Treasury Department as of September of  2008 had no budgetary authority to invest in equities, securities of any financial institution."

"FRBNY counsel to Federal Reserve Board officials on September 17, 2008, concerning 'Issues with regard to the NY Fed/Treasury's equity participation in AIG,' Treasury 'consider[s] themselves legally unable to assume ownership. This leaves the NYFed as Treasury's place to house the equity position.'"

"September 17, 2008 report of Treasury's external counsel at Wachtell: 'Treasury legal is telling, as per doj, that they cannot hold voting shares.'"

"TARP Chief Investment Officer Jim Lambright: In 'September when the Fed extended the credit facility, the government didn't have an equity tool.'"

"Board of Governors Legal Division: "'We understand that the Treasury lacks the legal authority to hold directly voting stock of AIG.'"

"Paulson: 'Q. And prior to TARP's approval, Treasury did not have the authority to purchase equity, either. Right?

 A. Correct.'"

            Given the cleavage from reason by our policy makers (one last, irresistible Fact: no one from AIG was allowed in the room during its nationalization), consider: (1) interests you may hold in financial institutions and (2) Paul Singer's description of the now legal means to redistribute those interests. Financial firms are more leveraged than is generally understood. Sell their securities.

Another Go

Frederick J. Sheehan is the author of Panderer to Power: The Untold Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession  (McGraw-Hill, 2009) and "The Coming Collapse of the Municipal Bond Market" (Aucontrarian.com, 2009)

Advocates for Federal Reserve disclosure harp on the five-year wait for FOMC transcripts. The reasoning goes that institutions in a democracy should be more democratic: let the people know what the Fed plots behind closed doors. The question arises: to what end?

            The 2008 transcripts were released in late-February. Most media operations published stories about the Fed's absent-minded professors who missed the importance of failing financial institutions during 2008. This was not news. That has been described over the past five years, among other places, in Panderer to Power. The release, however, was an opportunity to remind investors, retirees, florists, and students receiving government financing of their precarious state.

Now, the story of the 2008 transcripts has died, without much in the way of help to the bewildered. Granted, bewilderment is the general state of affairs today, whether at the FOMC, among the media, the people, and those who cannot understand how such as state-of-affairs continues. Nevertheless, the opportunity exists to elevate comprehension. This was the goal in"Those FOMC Transcripts: Watch Out Below," (February 26, 2014). The effort continues, here, to describe how the whirlwind of noise escaping the Eccles Building reflected through the self-serving interpretations of the Wall Street experts is so perilous. 

 

  From the March 3, 2014, King Report: "Due to quivering Fed officials' incessant assertions that the Fed would halt or even reverse QE tapering if economic conditions warrant, an increasing universe of investors and traders see little or no downside equity risk."

There we have the reason various U.S. stock indices alternately hit all-time highs. We should not need The Charge of the Light Brigade to worry investors. The February 21, 2014, issue of Grant's Interest Rate Observer includes a front-page reminder that pre-tax profits of U.S. corporations as a percentage of G.D.P. are the highest since records began in 1946; after 382 of the S&P 500 reported fourth quarter results, average year-on-year gain on profit has been 10.7%; of the same cohort, revenue growth has been 0.7%. Presumably, these are not adjusted for price inflation which is currently raging in the United States, all claims to the contrary deserving ridicule.

At the September 16, 2008, FOMC meeting, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke was not blind to financial woes. He declared: "Conditions clearly have worsened recently, despite the rescue of the GSEs, the latest stressor being the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and other factors such as AIG." He did not stop there, acknowledging "[a]lmost all financial institutions are facing significant stress, particularly difficulties in raising capital, and credit quality is problematic, particularly in residential areas."

Nevertheless, Bernanke was not troubled. He concluded this discourse by opining: "We may have to wait for some time to get clarity of the last week or so." As discussed in my first go at the 2008 transcripts, the FOMC voted to sit still, voting unanimously to keep the fed funds rate at 2.0%. The reason for such repose is the central-banking fable that finance can be ignored; its Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium model will produce a monetary solution to address a dyspeptic stock market or a dollar meltdown.

In the same discussion as quoted above, Chairman Ben said: "We have been debating around this table for quite awhile what the right indicator of monetary policy is." He mentioned some proposed numbers, but, in any case: "I think the only answer is that the right measure is contingent on a model." And: "[Y]ou have to have a model."

(On a different topic, unrelated to the main discussion here, Simple Ben declared: "The ideal way to deal with moral hazard is a well-developed structure that gives clear indications.... We have found ourselves in this episode in a situation in which events are happening quickly, and we don't have those things in place." He had been Fed chairman for almost three years yet mentions the Fed's negligence in not addressing Too-Big-to-Fail banks as if he forgot to order corn-on-the-cob for the Fed's clambake.)  

This slapdash approach has not changed, is obviously unattached to the real world, and will leave Chairman Yellen helpless the next time markets and financial institutions melt. The otherworldliness of it all is captured in this discussion itself. The world's financial backstop (our man Ben) goes on for several pages at a time when Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley could not get funding from a counterparty. This is quite different than at the FOMC meeting on September 29, 1998, after Long-Term Capital Management went belly up. Then-Chairman Alan Greenspan took on a different personality from previous FOMC meetings. He demanded answers to questions about collateral and leverage that made him wonder if modern-day bankers knew what they were doing. (He recovered from this revelatory meeting as soon as LTCM faded, in a sycophantic stunt before the derivatives lobby that pays him so extravagantly today. See pages 189-190 of Panderer to Power. )

Of course, one wants to know: are we up a creek with Chairman Janet Yellen in command? Let us compare and contrast two speeches delivered on February 27, 2014. (I thank Doug Noland, at the Prudent Bear Fund for his transcription of Dr. Issing's comments in Bundesbankification .) 

Otmar Issing, former chief economist of the Bundsebank and ECB, spoke at the Bundesbank Symposium on Financial Stability, in Frankfurt, on February 27. Unlike Bernanke and Yellen, Issing thinks financial bubbles have consequences: "[P]rice stability is not enough. And I think this has dramatic consequences for the conduct of monetary policy. For me, the implication is very clear: policy which relies on a forecast (model) based on a real economy only without a financial sector - without taking into account money and Credit in a sensible way - is not anymore state of the art." Was it ever? Possibly when 59% of American profits came from manufacturing and 9% from finance. That was in 1950.

Issing never made headway during the mortgage madness: "I'm reminded of many, many meetings here or especially in the U.S. with my friends from the Fed. Their reaction was absolutely clear: when I referred to a potential bubble in real estate, what I heard always was 'never in the last 50 years have real estate prices fallen on a nationwide aspect.' For me, this was not a comfort."

He did not stand a chance of making headway with Bernanke and Yellen in 2006 and 2007: "[T]heir reaction to my critique or argument was very relaxed: 'In the meantime, we have had much higher GDP, higher employment, more houses, etc. So compared to the cost of raising interest rates would be much too high - much too high.' I have never seen so far the comparison of the high cost of the mess we are in if we take this 'risk management' approach."

Issing addressed the hostile stupidity of the academics in charge: "I learn that we're allowed to talk of Bubbles now, which was out of the question for a long time in research - "the buildup of Bubbles goes very slowly - softly - but the collapse goes very fast. So it's obvious that that the [central] bank should react in a decisive way one prices collapse." I think Issing may not have ventured to the U.S. lately. The "bubbles do not exist" lobby is pressing its point once again, and, once again, it is from the universities.

Back in Washington, on the same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen talked to the Senators. She is lost in space. A few statements that will not receive interpretation:

"Fiscal policy really has been quite tight and has imposed a substantial drag on spending in the U.S. economy over the last several years..."

"I'm slightly surprised that he [Fed Board Governor Daniel Tarullo] said we are 'nowhere close' [on resolving Too-Big-To-Fail] because I personally think we've made quite a lot of progress in putting in place regulations that will make a huge differences [sic] to this...."

"I agree that an environment of low rates ... and we have had a long period of low interest rates ... can give rise to behavior that poses threats to financial stability and therefore we need to be looking at that very carefully and we are doing so in a very thorough way, I believe."

"Since the financial crisis and the depths of the recession, substantial progress has been made in restoring the economy to health and in strengthening the financial system."

Closing on a higher plane:

Shirley Temple died recently. There have been many accolades but I don't know if the tributes have discussed her admirable character. She serves as a model for children and adults alike.

Her talent was described by Will Friedwald in the Wall Street Journal: "The most obvious thing to remember Shirley Temple for - a point so overwhelming that it barely needs to be stated - is that she was the greatest child star in the history of not just the movies but all of popular culture. No other youngster so dominated the box office and no other individual, other than Franklin D. Roosevelt himself, did more to deliver both Republicans and Democrats alike from the Great Depression. But what isn't said often enough about Shirley Temple Black is that when you compare her to the many dancing ladies in the movies who couldn't really sing (Ginger Rogers, Rita Hayworth, Cyd Charisse) and those terrific singers in films who danced merely passably (Judy Garland, Doris Day), Temple emerges as the major female triple-threat of her era and since. She was a singer of uncommon ability, capable of putting a song over with the best of them in an age when the competition was Al Jolson and Bing Crosby; a dancer worthy of comparison with Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly and even her longtime costar, the great African-American tap dancer Bill "Bojangles" Robinson; and an actress who could break your heart just by looking at you."

She was born with talent; it was her unalloyed resolution that made her an exceptional person. Each morning when she showed up on the set, she knew her lines, her steps, and her songs. This five, six, and seven-year-old girl was angry, joyful, or remorseful when the shooting started. The studio did not require second takes on Shirley Temple's account. It was said her mother pushed her into show business, but such strength is a habit that comes from within. She could have demanded the concessions movie stars are noted for exacting. She never did. Her talent could never have achieved the praise bestowed by Will Friedwald without habits "rooted deep in the whole personality. They have to be cultivated like any other habit, over a long period of time, by experience." (Flannery O'Connor) Few can match her industry, but, as was said above, she is a model of character.

            The actress Louise Brooks wrote: "Anyone who has achieved excellence knows it comes as a result of ceaseless concentration."

Hall of Fame

Frederick J. Sheehan is the author of Panderer to Power: The Untold Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession  (McGraw-Hill, 2009) and "The Coming Collapse of the Municipal Bond Market" (Aucontrarian.com, 2009)

Refreshing was the questioning of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke by Congressman Scott Garrett from New Jersey in "Shooting Stars." We can hope his influence may spread.

Not to be forgotten are retired legislators, who did their best. Following is the lashing from Senator Jim Bunning to Chairman Ben S. Bernanke at his re-fossilization hearing on December 3, 2009, for a second term as Fed chairman.

Right off the bat it was a pleasure not to hear Bunning thank the Chairman for saving the world during the financial crisis of 2008. Most of the other senators groveled. ("I believe you are the right leader for this moment in the nation's economic history and I believe your reappointment sends the right signal to markets," - Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said during his opening statement. - CNNMoney]

But, Senator Bunning developed the habit of going straight for the Adam's apple at a young age. Elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame, the right-handed pitcher won 224 games and hit more batters than all but 10 pitchers in the history of baseball.

Extraordinary is not so much what he says, which is true, but that, four years later, there is such a wall of silence, a stillness, that will not speak of the malignant agglomerations swollen to proportions unimaginable since 2009.

Fear of the end, one might agree, is why trivia substitutes for the truth.

Prepared remarks from Senator Jim Bunning(R-KY)  

Four years ago when you came before the Senate for confirmation to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve, I was the only Senator to vote against you.  In fact, I was the only Senator to even raise serious concerns about you.  I opposed you because I knew you would continue the legacy of Alan Greenspan, and I was right.  But I did not know how right I would be and could not begin to imagine how wrong you would be in the following four years.

The Greenspan legacy on monetary policy was breaking from the Taylor Rule to provide easy money, and thus inflate bubbles. Not only did you continue that policy when you took control of the Fed, but you supported every Greenspan rate decision when you were on the Fed earlier this decade. Sometimes you even wanted to go further and provide even more easy money than Chairman Greenspan. [FOMC transcripts show Bernanke egged Greenspan into cutting rates and Bernanke provided the academic [sic] apparatus for doing so - FJS]  As recently as a letter you sent me two weeks ago, you still refuse to admit Fed actions played any role in inflating the housing bubble despite overwhelming evidence and the consensus of economists to the contrary. [This has not changed in 2013. - FJS] And in your efforts to keep filling the punch bowl, you cranked up the printing press to buy mortgage securities, Treasury securities, commercial paper, and other assets from Wall Street. Those purchases, by the way, led to some nice profits for the Wall Street banks and dealers who sold them to you, and the G.S.E. purchases seem to be illegal since the Federal Reserve Act only allows the purchase of securities backed by the government.

On consumer protection, the Greenspan policy was "don't do it." You went along with his policy before you were Chairman, and continued it after you were promoted. The most glaring example is it took you two years to finally regulate subprime mortgages after Chairman Greenspan did nothing for 12 years. Even then, you only acted after pressure from Congress and after it was clear subprime mortgages were at the heart of the economic meltdown. On other consumer protection issues you only acted as the time approached for your re-nomination to be Fed Chairman.

Alan Greenspan refused to look for bubbles or try to do anything other than create them. Likewise, it is clear from your statements over the last four years that you failed to spot the housing bubble despite many warnings. [Today, in 2013, Bernanke brags that he is lifting house prices to artificial levels. - FJS]

Chairman Greenspan's attitude toward regulating banks was much like his attitude toward consumer protection. Instead of close supervision of the biggest and most dangerous banks, he ignored the growing balance sheets and increasing risk. You did no better. In fact, under your watch every one of the major banks failed or would have failed if you did not bail them out.

On derivatives, Chairman Greenspan and other Clinton Administration officials attacked Brooksley Born when she dared to raise concerns about the growing risks. They succeeded in changing the law to prevent her or anyone else from effectively regulating derivatives. After taking over the Fed, you did not see any need for more substantial regulation of derivatives until it was clear that we were headed to a financial meltdown thanks in part to those products.

The Greenspan policy on transparency was talk a lot, use plenty of numbers, but say nothing. Things were so bad one TV network even tried to guess his thoughts by looking at the briefcase he carried to work. You promised Congress more transparency when you came to the job, and you promised us more transparency when you came begging for TARP. To be fair, you have published some more information than before, but those efforts are inadequate and you still refuse to provide details on the Fed's bailouts last year and on all the toxic waste you have bought.

And Chairman Greenspan sold the Fed's independence to Wall Street through the so-called "Greenspan Put". Whenever Wall Street needed a boost, Alan was there. But you went far beyond that when you bowed to the political pressures of the Bush and Obama administrations and turned the Fed into an arm of the Treasury. Under your watch, the Bernanke Put became a bailout for all large financial institutions, including many foreign banks. And you put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street, which they use to rake in record profits while ordinary Americans and small businesses can't even get loans for their everyday needs.

Now, I want to read you a quote, Mr. Green-, Mr. Bernanke [laughter, including a smug, patronizing, chortle from Mr. Green-anke - FJS]. That was a Freudian slip, believe me. :"I believe that the tools available to the banking agencies, including the ability to require adequate capital and an effective bank receivership process are sufficient to allow the agencies to minimize the systemic risks associated with large banks.  Moreover, the agencies have made clear that no bank is too-big-too-fail, so that bank management, shareholders, and un-insured debt holders understand that they will not escape the consequences of excessive risk-taking.  In short, although vigilance is necessary, I believe the systemic risk inherent in the banking system is well-managed and well-controlled."

That should sound familiar, since it was part of your response to a question I asked about the systemic risk of large financial institutions at your last confirmation hearing.  I'm going to ask that the full question and answer be included in today's hearing record.

Now, if that statement was true and you had acted according to it, I might be supporting your nomination today. But since then, you have decided that just about every large bank, investment bank, insurance company, and even some industrial companies are too big to fail. Rather than making management, shareholders, and debt holders feel the consequences of their risk-taking, you bailed them out. In short, you are the definition of moral hazard.    

Instead of taking that money and lending to consumers and cleaning up their balance sheets, the banks started to pocket record profits and pay out billions of dollars in bonuses. Because you bowed to pressure from the banks and refused to resolve them or force them to clean up their balance sheets and clean out the management, you have created zombie banks that are only enriching their traders and executives. You are repeating the mistakes of Japan in the 1990s on a much larger scale, while sowing the seeds for the next bubble. In the same letter where you refused to admit any responsibility for inflating the housing bubble, you also admitted that you do not have an exit strategy for all the money you have printed and securities you have bought. [This has not changed. Simple Ben, testifying, July 17, 2013: "If we were to tighten (monetary) policy, the economy would tank." - FJS] That sounds to me like you intend to keep propping up the banks for as long as they want.

Even if all that were not true, the A.I.G. bailout alone is reason enough to send you back to Princeton. First you told us A.I.G. and its creditors had to be bailed out because they posed a systemic risk, largely because of the credit default swaps portfolio. Those credit default swaps, by the way, are over the counter derivatives that the Fed did not want regulated. Well, according to the TARP Inspector General, it turns out the Fed was not concerned about the financial condition of the credit default swaps partners when you decided to pay them off at par. In fact, the Inspector General makes it clear that no serious efforts were made to get the partners to take haircuts, and one bank's offer to take a haircut, and you declined it. I can only think of two possible reasons you would not make then-New York Fed President Geithner try to save the taxpayers some money by seriously negotiating or at least take up U.B.S. on their offer of a haircut. Sadly, those two reasons are incompetence or a desire to secretly funnel more money to a few select firms, most notably Goldman Sachs [Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd Blankfein testified he was never asked to take a haircut - FJS], Merrill Lynch, and a handful of large European banks. I also cannot understand why you did not seek European government contributions to this bailout of their banking system.

From monetary policy to regulation, consumer protection, transparency, and independence, your time as Fed Chairman has been a failure. You stated time and again during the housing bubble that there was no bubble. After the bubble burst, you repeatedly claimed the fallout would be small. And you clearly did not spot the systemic risks that you claim the Fed was supposed to be looking out for.

Where I come from we punish failure, not reward it. That is certainly the way it was when I played baseball, and the way it is all across America, presently.  Judging by the current Treasury Secretary, some may think Washington does reward failure, but that should not be the case.  I will do everything I can to stop your nomination and drag out the process as long as possible.  We must put an end to your and the Fed's failures, and there is no better time than now. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island.

[End]

Part of Bernanke's response: "Let me just correct one point.... We absolutely believed that AIG's failure would be an enormous systemic risk and would have imposed enormous damage, not just on the financial system, and this is the key point, on the entire U.S. economy and on every American."

If this was true - on the September 2008 day when Bernanke & Co. nationalized AIG - then, no one present understood the difference between a holding company and an operating company. See "The Professor Who Did NOT Save the World", and "David Boies v. Citizen Ben S. Bernanke". If Chairman Bernanke really was that detached from how businesses operate in September 2008, he apparently had no one around who told him the difference by December 2009.

Alternatively, the Fed chairman operates on the Big Lie Theorem, which, if so, is working like a charm and he's not a dumb as he sounds. 

David Boies v. Citizen Ben S. Bernanke

Frederick J. Sheehan is the author of Panderer to Power: The Untold Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession  (McGraw-Hill, 2009) and "The Coming Collapse of the Municipal Bond Market" (Aucontrarian.com, 2009)

           A splendid opportunity is in the offing, though it is premature to expect the earth to quake. As background, Hank Greenberg, former chairman of AIG, is suing the United States. The case itself is not the subject here. Starr International Company, in which Greenberg is housing his lawsuit, was the largest shareholder in AIG on September 16, 2008, the day when the U.S. government "seized control of AIG" (quoting from the September 17, 2008, Wall Street Journal).

            Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke played a central role in the seizure. He was subpoenaed to testify (in STARR INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, INC., v. UNITED STATES) on its behalf and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated plaintiffs.

            Bernanke ducked the deposition. The UNITED STATES (the Department of Justice) argued the "deposition would interfere with Mr. Bernanke's important duties in managing the nation's economy and fiscal policy." [My underlining - FJS]

Before returning to this jarring admission from America's National Socialist headquarters, Judge Thomas Wheeler's anger v. the UNITED STATES is offered as background.

A Bloomberg headline on May 17, 2013: "AIG Judge Asks if U.S. Scared Board from Starr Lawsuit." The curious judge was Thomas Wheeler, who expressed "concern" that the U.S. scared off American International Group from joining a lawsuit by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, its former chairman, challenging the insurer's 2008 federal bailout." Wheeler had a "lingering concern" that a "request by AIG and the government to dismiss [Hank] Greenberg's lawsuit" was a product of the government "intimidating" the "AIG directors who took their seats during the bailout."  

Such a judge, glued athwartship v. the UNITED STATES' attempt to arrogate his courtroom, was unlikely to let the Federal Reserve chairman skip town. And he didn't. In the United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 11 - 779C (Filed: July 29, 2013), Judge Wheeler wrote: "The Court is persuaded that Mr. Bernanke is a key witness in this case, and that his testimony will be highly relevant to the issues presented. Because of Mr. Bernanke's personal involvement in the decision-making process to bail out AIG, it is improbable that Plaintiff would be able to obtain the same testimony or evidence from other persons or sources.... Indeed, the Court cannot fathom having to decide this multi-billion dollar claim without the testimony of such a key government decision-maker.... Defendant [the UNITED STATES' Department of Justice - FJS] contends that Plaintiff should be required to pursue other avenues of discovery first before seeking Mr. Bernanke's testimony. In its July 23, 2013 reply, Defendant also asserts that a deposition would interfere with Mr. Bernanke's important duties in managing the nation's economy and fiscal policy." [My underlining: Note "cannot fathom" - Judge Wheeler is ripping mad - FJS]

Defendant's motion for a protective order is DENIED.

                                                      IT IS SO ORDERED

                                          s/Thomas C. Wheeler

                                          THOMAS C. WHEELER

           

There is so much that is wrong with all of this: The Federal Reserve chairman, 1 - managing the economy and, 2 - running fiscal policy. Leaving aside his eternal bumbling, the Federal Reserve chairman is a bureaucrat with no authority to do either. Fiscal policy is for Congress. Bernanke should be planted in front of a congressional inquiry at this very moment, to explain himself. The Justice Department wrote the "too busy" plea to Judge Wheeler. Instead, it should read what it wrote and draw up charges against the Federal Reserve Chairman. Reading through Judge Wheeler's comments on May 17, 2013, and July 29, 2013, the Justice Department is guilty of obstructing Starr International's case against the UNITED STATES.

Why might that be? Probably because of the central charge: the UNITED STATES exceeded its authority by commandeering AIG without compensation to anyone. If the UNITED STATES is found guilty by the courts, it "should" (it is unwise to say "will" regarding legal decisions and precedent anymore) place restrictions on the government's gargantuan appetite for whatever it wants to control.

The UNITED STATES may also be attempting to preclude an open investigation that will show how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner mishandled the 2008 financial crisis. This is not a secret. Books by Sheila Bair and David Stockman, as well as the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (by the FCIC) have already done so. Yet, the media continues to report how we "must thank Bernanke (or the others) for saving us from a nuclear winter." These advocates have avoided the evidence.

A segment of Bernanke's ignorance was discussed in "The Professor Who did NOT Save the World." In summary: "Those who held insurance policies with AIG or its subsidiaries never bore risk of non-payment."

Bernanke still had no understanding of AIG's structure a year later when he testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The professor did no homework. Lack of preparation by Bernanke is no longer even surprising. His various testimony is shot through with errors.

The FCIC transcript quotes Bernanke on page 28 and 29: "The reason AIG was set up the way it was originally, the financial products division ["Financial products division" was the profit center that sold CDS - FJS], which did the CDS, attached itself precisely because it was a large, highly-rated insurance company with lots of assets. Therefore it could sell CDS without what would otherwise be sufficient capitalization and protections because the counterparties would know that this was a highly rated firm with lots and lots of assets. It was precisely because of that reason when [AIG] financial products [division] had to sell - had to come up with the collateral - and was facing a run on its positions, that the Fed - that there existed the collateral, the assets that the Fed could lend against." [My italics - FJS]

This is all wrong.

The two dopes, that would be former Fed Chairman Greenspan and Bernanke, have never been cornered by the various Congressional and Senatorial Committees. Retired Congressman Ron Paul was a persistent irritant  to the Fed chairmen but he was not a lawyer and not equipped with a good court room attorney's ability to make mincemeat of a fumbling witness. Starr International Company is represented by David Boies, who, if he is at all worthy of his reputation, will twist Bernanke (presumably, he is also questioning Paulson and Geithner) into a pretzel of incomprehensibility. The favorable disposition of Judge Wheeler is wind at his back. Should Boies need any help in how to question the head of the Fed, please send him this way. 

It's All in the Flows

Frederick J. Sheehan is the author of Panderer to Power: The Untold Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession  (McGraw-Hill, 2009) and "The Coming Collapse of the Municipal Bond Market" (Aucontrarian.com, 2009)

            The 2007 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) transcripts were released last week. Media reports have concentrated on the Fed's forbearance during the credit meltdown. Implied, but not stated (in what I have read) is the major reason for such nonchalance: The Fed only acknowledges flows, not stocks. This might sound boring. It is also very important to understand.

            This approach to central banking has not changed. All of the major central banks use the same framework. The media and Wall Street spend most of their time interpreting the meaning of central-bank talk. Central banks will never mention a growing concern about loan defaults since the academics can always thwart potential catastrophes by modeling preventive flows (e.g., liquidity). The catastrophic financial failure that most of us endured in 2007 and 2008 was not a failure at all, according to central bankers. Their models still conclude there is always a central-banking solution that will prevent any catastrophe. In conclusion: when the current financial bubble topples, there will no forewarning from central bankers, the media, or Wall Street. Given their processes of thinking, they will be more surprised than the average hairdresser.  

            "Stocks," in this case, does not refer to common stocks, but the accounts and categories in which assets (and their liabilities) accumulate. The Fed, a creature of academia, knows everything. Knowing everything limits policy to sufficient "liquidity": flows. It - to be more precise - its DSGE model, does not care about accumulations: stocks.

The Fed was taken unaware when credit cracked up in the summer of 2007. Unlike many local realtors and carpenters, the FOMC did not understand the connection between flows (bad loans pouring into off-balance sheet Special Investment Vehicles) and stocks (of mushrooming mortgage credit going sour). The Fed presumably noticed pieces of the mortgage machine (subprime lenders, appraisers, Fannie Mae, commercial banks, investment banks, CDOs) even though it did not comprehend the artificiality of this contrived structure. Hence, the Fed missed the connection between the economic expansion of the mid-oughts and its artificial nature. (As we know now, the Fed does not blanch at running an economy by rigging its prices, so, we know now, central banks do not understand an artificial economy is unsustainable.)

All of which is to say the Fed and its FOMC did not know a loss of forward momentum would be followed by an abrupt shift to backward momentum. Again, this has not changed. Despite talk of deleveraging, the U.S. economy has continued to lever up since the non-catastrophe of 2007 and 2008. Total non-financial debt has risen from 240% of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2008 to 249% of GDP after the second quarter of 2012.

The Fed does not understand the artificial credit created by central banks that has flowed since 1971 has coagulated into unsustainable imbalances around the world. The FOMC will be in the caboose when government debt loses its imaginary, "riskless" character (e.g., banks do not need to reserve against most sovereign bonds). As in 2007 and 2008, the stated price of artificially produced assets is illusory, so the assets cannot stand on their own without ever increasing flows to support prices. The flows accumulate in stocks, the artificial composition of which will topple.

The rate of non-financial debt production in the U.S. economy has slowed down. It increased by 4.6% in the first quarter and 5.1% in the second quarter of 2012. Third quarter growth was 2.4%. When forward momentum is lost, backward momentum will prevail.

The jig was up by the summer of 2007. Those monitoring the Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter website were waiting. The mortgage-makers on parade were not necessarily bankrupt but had, at least, abandoned a major segment of their lending activities. By the end of March 2007, the Implode-o-Meter list had grown to 49, including some of the largest vacuums that fed the machine: HSBC Mortgage Services, Ameriquest, ACC Wholesale, New Century, Wachovia Mortgage. Except for those who worshiped liquidity flows, it was impossible to miss the credit crash.

Yet, following are comments from the August 7, 2007, FOMC Meeting:

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: "I think the odds are that the market will stabilize. Most credits are pretty strong except for parts of the mortgage market."

            Of course, this is to be expected. Bernanke was quoted in October 2008 as not knowing if there was a housing bubble.

            More importantly, the man with his hand on the tiller, who should have enlightened the professors, was just as dense:

WILLIAM DUDLEY: "We've done quite a bit of work trying to identify some of the funding questions surrounding Bear Stearns, Countrywide, and some of the commercial-paper programs. There is some strain, but so far it looks as though nothing is really imminent in those areas. Now, could that change quickly? Absolutely."

Dudley ran the New York Fed's open-market desk. He is now President of the New York Fed. He had been an economist at Goldman Sachs. It is expected the academics are out-to-lunch, but Dudley had dealt in money from Goldman. His misunderstanding is appalling. (On August 16, 2007, Countrywide drew down its entire credit line of $11.5 billion. On August 17, 2007, there was a bank run on Countrywide. This was the real McCoy. The Los Angeles Times published pictures of customers lined up outside branches. The Federal Reserve cut its discount rate (not the fed funds rate) from 6.25% to 5.75% on the same day. After the August 7, 2007, meeting, the FOMC announced: "Economic growth was moderate during the first part of the year." Eight days later (the FOMC held emergency telephone calls on August 10, 2007, and August 16, 2007), the Fed justified the discount-rate cut by declaring: "Financial market conditions have deteriorated and tighter credit conditions and increased uncertainty have the potential to restrain economic growth.")

To conclude, a flavor of what was happening when the FOMC met in August 2007:

July 31, 2007 - "Mortgage insurers MGIC Investment Corp. and Radian Group Inc. said they might write off their combined $1.03-billion stake in a venture that invests in subprime mortgages on which payments were past due."

July 31, 2007 - "American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., which lends to people close to the sub-prime category, postponed payment of its dividend, took 'major' write-downs and said its lenders were demanding that it put up more cash. Its stock plunged 39%. 'Bankruptcy is not out of the question' for American Home, said Matt Howlett, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton Inc. in New York. 'It needs to find a partner with alternative funding and hope the market turns around.'"

July 31, 2007 - "Insurer CNA Financial Corp. wrote down $20 million in sub-prime-backed securities."

July 31, 2007 - "In Germany, shares of IKB Deutsche Industriebank, which 10 days earlier said the [U.S.] sub-prime crisis wouldn't affect it, fell 20% in Frankfurt on Monday after it reported problems with investments in U.S. sub-prime mortgages."
 

August 1, 2007 - "American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. shares yesterday plunged 90 percent after the Melville, New York-based lender said it doesn't have cash to fund new loans, stranding thousands of home buyers and putting the company on the brink of failure."
 

August 1, 2007 - "Bear Stearns Cos., the New York-based manager of two hedge funds that collapsed last month, blocked investors from pulling money out of a third fund as losses in the credit markets expand beyond securities related to subprime mortgages."
 

August 3, 2007 - (Reuters): "AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE TO CLOSE FRIDAY" - American Home Mortgage Investment Corp plans to close most operations on Friday and said nearly 7,000 employees will lose their jobs.... American Home originated $59 billion in loans last year, and mostly to people with better credit than risky subprime borrowers. About half of those mortgages were adjustable-rate loans, whose defining feature is an interest rate that can be adjusted upward. 'It is with great sadness that American Home has had to take this action which involves so many dedicated employees,' Chief Executive Michael Strauss said in a statement." [My italics - FJS]
 

August 3, 2007 - "Moody's Investors Service said this week it plans to take a harder look at bonds backed by those Alt-A mortgages, which are turning out to look more like subprime loans than it expected."

August 9, 2007 - (Reuters) - "American International Group, one of the biggest U.S. mortgage lenders, warned on Thursday that mortgage defaults are spreading. While saying most of its mortgage insurance and residential loans were safe, AIG made a presentation to analysts and investors that showed delinquencies are becoming more common among borrowers in the category just above subprime. Although acknowledging the "significant declines" in subprime securities, Chief Executive Martin Sullivan said AIG's tight underwriting standards had minimized losses and he was 'poised to take advantage of opportunities' in the mortgage market.'"

A final note: Some media reviews of the 2007 FOMC transcripts have given San Francisco Fed President (as she was then) Janet Yellen an A+ for anticipating the mortgage crash at early 2007 FOMC meetings. I doubt this. Since serving as Federal Reserve governor in 2004, Yellen has consistently wanted to cut rates. At one meeting, she was aghast when she learned the consumer savings rate had risen, since this would reduce consumption, push the economy into recession, so let's cut rates before the world ends. She's as witless as Simple Ben.