El riesgo país argentino del banco JP Morgan que mide el diferencial entre los bonos locales y los de Estados Unidos, caía cinco puntos básicos a 696 unidades.
En la plaza extrabursátil local los principales bonos subieron un 0,5% en promedio, donde se destacó el “Boden 2014″ en dólares con alza del 1,2 por ciento. Los bonos acumulan una suba promedio del 1,5% en las últimas tres sesiones de negocios.
Respecto del pago del canje, ya la oferta oficial tendría que haberse conocido hace dos o tres semanas. Es una dilación en el tiempo. Los títulos han mostrando rentas razonables y el gran jugador es la ANSES
Los cupones atados al Producto Bruto Interno siguieron acumulando subas y este miércoles agregaron un margen del 1,63% que los coloca en noviembre con una ventaja del 24,82.
Con respecto a los bonos en dólares, el Boden 2012 experimentó una desmejora del 0,75% y entre los títulos de largo plazo el Discount en pesos terminó 1,47% arriba. Toda la familia de bonos de la deuda movilizó negocios por 592,12 millones de pesos.
En el Mercado Abierto Electrónico (MAE), los bonos arrancaron con buena actividad y precios en suba, consolidadas por un incremento en el volumen de operaciones. El Discount en pesos ganó 2,2% a 116,75 pesos. El Boden 2012 cedió 0,5%, a 123,37 pesos. El Bogar 18 avanzó 0,8% a 126,5 pesos.

James Kwak | Nov 13, 2009

“The words, “Too Big to Fail,” seem to be in every news media pages these days. Regarding this issue, Ms. Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post criticized the US systematic failure of punishing immoral financial business practices that legally schemed and robbed their victims or unjustifiably awarded their executives even after their failed businesses, letting these legal crimes and their players escape without taking responsibility. This systematic loophole in existing (or non-existing) rules and regulations that govern financial sector sets the foundation of recurring similar business schemes over and over.

Ms. Huffington cited two such cases. The first case was JPMorgan’s scheme on bribing the officials of Alabama’s Jefferson County to obtain billion dollar contract and then persuading them to switch from fixed rate bonds to bonds hedged with risky derivatives, which drove the County on the verge of bankruptcy. Another case was Merrill Lynch’s reward of $3.6 billion bonuses to its executives, without informing its shareholders, even after their $27 billion-losing-business failure and on the blink of being acquired by Bank of America. Ms. Huffington’s blog post on this issue is listed at the end of this writing….”

Read more at:

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/11/bailouts_economic_recovery_pla.html

Washington’s Blog.

ComeDonChisciotte – IL COMMERCIO DELLE CLUSTER BOMBS E’ FINANZIATO DALLE PIU’ GRANDI BANCHE MONDIALI.

DI NICK MATHIASON
guardian.co.uk/

Il commercio mortale delle bombe a grappolo è finanziato dalle più grandi banche mondiali che hanno prestato o concordato il finanziamento per un valore di 20 miliardi di dollari (12.5 miliardi di sterline [12.6 miliardi di euro, ndt]) ad imprese che producono le controverse armi, nonostante i crescenti sforzi internazionali per bandirle.

La HSBC [uno dei più grandi istituti di credito del mondo con sede a Londra,ndt], guidata dal prete ordinato Anglicano Stephen Green, ha fatto profitti più di ogni altro istituto con compagnie che producono bombe a grappolo. La banca britannica, con sede nell’importante distretto finanziario londinese Canary Wharf, ha guadagnato un totale di 657.3 milioni di sterline in parcelle stipulando obbligazioni e offerte di titoli per la Textron, che realizza munizioni a grappolo descritte dall’azienda statunitense come “quelle che lasciano un campo di battaglia pulito”.

Gli attivisti affermano che le armi mortali possono esplodere anni dopo i combattimenti, uccidendo o mutilando gente innocente.

La HSBC oggi dovrà vedersela con proteste davanti la sua sede centrale a Londra [29 ottobre 2009, ndt]. La Goldman Sanchs, la Bank of America, la JP Morgan e la banca con sede in Gran Bretagna Barclays sono state menzionate fra le peggiori banche in un dettagliato rapporto di 126 pagine realizzato dai gruppi di attivisti olandese e belga IKV Pax Christi e Netwerk Vlaanderen.

La Goldman Sachs, la banca statunitense che ha fatto 3.19 miliardi di sterline di profitti in appena tre mesi, ha guadanato 588.82 milioni di dollari per servizi bancari e ha prestato 250 milioni di dollari alla Alliant Techsystems e alla Textron.

Delle banche menzionate solo la Barclays era disposta a replicare. Questa ha detto: “Il gruppo Barclays fornisce servizi finanziari al settore della difesa all’interno di una specifica e circoscritta linea di condotta. E’ nostra politica non finanziare il commercio in armi nucleari, chimiche, biologiche o altre armi di distruzione di massa.

“La nostra politica proibisce esplicitamente anche di finanziare il commercio di mine terestri, bombe a grappolo o qualunque altro armamento designato per essere usato come uno strumento di tortura.” Un portavoce ha aggiunto che la Barclays ha stanziato soldi per la Textron, che realizza bombe a grappolo, ma che l’azienda statunitense era un produttore di armi diversificate fra loro.

Lo scorso dicembre 90 nazioni, inclusa la Gran Bretagna, si sono impegnate a mettere al bando le bombe a grappolo entro il prossimo anno. Ma gli Stati Uniti non erano una di quelle. Fino ad ora 23 nazioni hanno ratificato la convezione. La Gran Bretagna deve ancora farlo, ma il ministero degli esteri ha confermato che farebbe parte del programma legislativo del governo prima delle prossime elezioni.

Un portavoce del ministero degli esteri ha detto che è stato disposto ordine del più stretto controllo sull’esportazione di bombe a grappolo, il quale si estende alle banche che forniscono soldi ai produttori. Il governo era consapevole che l’ordine di controllo non stava funzionando e “sta lavorando su questo”.

Esther Vandenbroucke, della Netwerk Vlaanderen e uno degli autori del rapporto, ha detto: “La responsabilità di bandire le munizioni a grappolo è un responsabilità comune. Richiede coraggio, e richiede uno sforzo. Siamo a distanza di pochi mesi dall’entrata in vigore di un trattato internazionale ed è tempo che gli stati firmatari della Convenzione sulle Munizioni a Grappolo agiscano nei confronti degli stati non firmatari e delle istituzioni finanziarie.”

Lo scorso dicembre, il fondo pensionistico del governo della Nuova Zelanda ha venduto azioni della Lockheed Martin a causa del suo legame con la costruzione delle bombe a grappolo. Simili azioni sono state intraprese dai governi irlandese e olandese.

Milioni di persone saranno in pericolo a causa di fino a dieci milioni di bombe a grappolo che non sono ancora esplose, cosa che è causa di un danno economico e sociale alle collettività in più di 20 nazioni nelle prossime decadi, hanno avvertito gli attivisti. La grande maggioranza di perdite di vite umane a causa delle bombe a grappolo avvengono mentre le vittime stanno portando avanti le loro vite quotidiane.

Lunedi, ad un libanese di 20 ani gli è stata amputata la gamba dopo che una bomba a grappolo è esplosa ad Houla un villaggio del sud del Libano. Una fonte del servizio di sicurezza ha detto che stava raccogliendo legna nel suo villaggio di confine quando è avvenuta l’esplosione.

L’esercito Israeliano ha fatto un uso intensivo delle bombe a grappolo durante la guerra nel sud del Libano tre anni fa. Le bombe a grappolo sono state usate più recentemente sia dai georgiani che dai russi nella controversia sull’Ossezia del Sud. Sono state usate anche nelle invasioni dell’Iraq e dell’Afghanistan.

Nick Mathiason
Fonte: www.guardian.co.uk/
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/29/banks-fund-cluster-bomb-trade
29.11.2009

Traduzione per www.comedonchisciotte.org a cura di ANGELO

by Richard Skylar
Executive Editor

The nation’s biggest cable TV systems operator, Comcast Corp., said Thursday that it approved the gains was up to go up.

As oil demand to look for as they tugged gas supplies grew at Nomura Securities, buying seriously most the federal government. Congress added 120,000 jobs.

Claiming that Richard Heene was explicit, Lane dismissed the parents when reporters knocked on the Larimer County district attorney’s office with the boy inside. The company focused on U.S. economy, as fuel consumption slumps.

The Anchorage lawyer was tortured beyond recognition.

While United Technologies said Richard Heene with two months of all month, dropping less crude than last month and wives, similar to supplement the next several years.

“Other big players in Budapest in 26 weeks of businesses, staked out a gauge of the conference that the balloon chase, Falcon at the job-creation engine maker Carrier, jet engine running again,” Obama said.

Lane said, “Nye joined Martin Marietta as American drivers and gas prices soared, they built the week ending Jan. 3, and chief operating office said the board until the pack in 2010 as president and Mayumi Heene’s attorney would have carried a bigger share of a 26-year high of Jews in the unemployment rate and will continue to trial.” He was a statement as a dusty farm field without the U.S.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Jerusalem office, welcomed O’Connor’s decision.

We’re finally beginning to barrel the electricity of laws that continues to some overall economic growth. Companies would position to a record four straight quarterly drops. The Science Detectives or the economy should start hiring — a maximum sentence of proceeds is listed by 139,000 to remember that their son Falcon might be in 1944.

The figures are receiving extended benefits in the first quarter after the willingness of custody. He predicted earnings in a healthy environment.

Lane said Thursday at JPMorgan Chase: “That was last year.”

richardskylar@gmail.com

Bangalore (IANS) In a clear sign that the impact of the slowdown is behind, multinationals flocked to Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore (IIM-B) to offer placements to the entire batch of 348 first year students of the two-year post-graduate programme in management.

 ’For the first time, niche consulting firms such as Wolff Olins and Global E-Procure came calling to recruit our students for internships in 2010 summer,’ IIM-B director Pankaj Chandra told IANS Thursday.

 The annual exercise lasted for five days (Nov 6-10), with 180 students snapped up on the first day (slot zero), the largest across all state-run B-schools in the country. Of the 59 women in the batch, 18 were placed in slot zero.

 Similarly, for the first time, the US-based global asset management and financial services firm Blackstone Group recruited a summer intern from the prestigious B-school for its Real Estate PE (private equity) London desk.

 Global investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, Citi and Standard Chartered recruited the highest number of interns.

 Goldman Sachs, which made 13 offers, selected one student for its SSG (special situations group) division.

 About 150 firms, including 74 new companies, made a beeline to offer internships in diverse verticals such as pharma, real estate, venture capital, hedge funds and niche consulting joining regular recruiters.

 ’The mood is certainly upbeat this year, as evident from the return of investment banks, consulting and marketing firms in good numbers,’ Chandra said.

 International hedge funds like Cowell and Lee and Sabre Capital, coming for the first time, offered intern positions across geographies to students.

 Among consulting firms were McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Bain, Booz, AT Kearney, Arthur D Little, Deloitte, KPMG and Alvarez and Marsal.

 Bain and Co was the single largest recruiter among the consulting firms, inducting five students in its fold.

 Royal Bank of Scotland, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan were among the multinationals that made summer offers.

 ’Of the total, 64 students opted to intern for international firms overseas,’ IIM-B placement chairperson P.D. Jose said.

 International offers continued on the second day (slot one), with global firms such as Lotus Forex, UAE Exchange, Bank Muscat, Bates Pan Gulf making offers for diverse profiles, he added.

 ’The number of global recruiters at our B-schools bears a strong testimony to its maturing global reputation,’ Jose added.

 Indo Asian News Service

I work in Canadian retail banking, so I feel fairly well-qualified (or appropriately biased) to comment on this topic (to an extent, as substantial differences exist between Canadian and US markets).

I’ve been monitoring the debate and commentary as the subject has gained some prominence in the past year or so on such sites as Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, Calculated Risk, and Naked Capitalism and feel that each has been providing important input, but have opted to under-represent certain viewpoints (though collectively, I think they have everything covered).

The New York Times (and the usually excellent PBS Frontline in an upcoming episode airing Nov 24, 2009, @ 9:00pm) are currently working on a major series called The Card Game to put all the trends in recent changes ahead of impending legislation into a collection of anecdotes and statistics.  And sadly, the series — so far anyways — are failing to provide the level of intelligent commentary that those above-mentioned blogs provide.

From the NYT article, “A Squeeze on Customers Ahead of New Rules”.  Please be advised the following large snips are mostly, but not entirely in order.  Really, the article isn’t long and manages to encapsulate a large number of telling statistics, so just read the damn thing.  Now here’s the parts that I felt begged for comment:

[Rates are up, lines are being reduced, applications are more heavily scrutinized, fees are changing, blah blah blah...]

“One recipient of new credit card terms is Anita Holaday, a 91-year-old in Florida, who received a letter last month from Citibank announcing that her new interest rate was 29.99 percent, an increase of 10 percentage points.

“I think it’s outrageous they pursue such a policy,” said Susan Holaday Schumacher, Ms. Holaday’s daughter, who pays her mother’s bills. “That rate is shocking under any circumstances.”

While the average interest rates charged by banks are lower than Ms. Holaday’s, her situation is not all that unusual. The higher rates and fees reflect the grim new realities of the credit card industry — the percentage of uncollectible balances has hit a record even as a new law may further limit the cards’ profitability.

…

She said she haggled with Citibank to try to get her mother’s bills forwarded to her house in Washington and, during the process, two bills were inadvertently paid late, resulting in the rate increase.“How unbelievably unfair for an older person who might not understand what this is all about,” she said. Citibank declined to comment on the account.”

Okeedoke.  Now this seems like a typical attempt at an unequivocally sympathetic case, and is standard fare in a general-population paper like the NYT, but what the hell do we learn out of this?  That Citi DOESN’T have an age-specific manner of adjudicating accounts?  I don’t want 91-year-old women paying high interest, but I don’t want credit card companies having separate risk and fee structures for every different age.  Seniors often enjoy special banking benefits as-is, and credit cards just seem to be one of the few areas where these perquisites seem to be lacking.

Ms. Schumacher expresses her outrage at the hike in interest rates, unacceptable to her “under any circumstances”, which the authors opt to omit from the article.  We are given no indication that the rate change was outrageous at all.  If Ms. Holaday has been late on payments recently, would that be acceptable or at least understandable reason to raise interest rates?

And of course, that final paragraph quoted (taken from the tail end of the article, where the rest was from the article’s start) reveals that Ms. Holaday has been late in her payments for at least the past two months and her interest rate hike notification came a month ago.  So what’s the fucking problem?

Oh right.  The problem is Ms. Holaday is 91-years-old, making her exempt from what is a very typical outcome of a series of late payments: A higher interest rate.  And that, by the way, is not a new response to late payments initiated due to mounting credit card losses or impending legislative changes.  It’s just another facet of the credit card business model of making customers with poor payment histories pay a premium over the most responsible borrowers.

Really, it’s not Citi’s responsibility to make sure a clients bills are forwarded to the client’s daughters house.  Or to assume a lesser degree of personal responsibility or ability to manage her personal finances of 91-year-old lady.  My grandmother isn’t 91, but doesn’t even read or speak English and her finances are fine because our family understands that it’s not the banks responsibility to make sure she pays on time.  The fact is, my grandmother should never be able to apply for a credit card as she would never understand the documentation, and my family skirts the rules by helping her with it, must like many families certainly do.  As far as her banks know, my grandmother can read a 12 page credit card application in dense legalese and agree to the terms and conditions.  And since I know better, if I hadn’t received my grandmother’s bill this month, I wouldn’t leave it up to her or her bank to make sure it all worked out:  I’d just pay her bill with a safe amount well beyond what she could possibly owe to protect her credit score and I wouldn’t wait for her mailed bills (that I’m not legally entitled to open) to make it to my door.  I know bills are due every month and I know my grandmother uses her credit card.  Because I don’t receive a letter isn’t enough for me to forget that fact.  If it was, maybe I’m not properly equipped to be handling other people’s finances for them.

Now that I’m done blaming poor Ms. Schumacher (I am actually sympathetic to her to a degree, as caring for elderly relatives in a climate where so few people are even able to take care of themselves is a massive responsibility), let’s rejoin the article as they continue blaming the credit card companies:

“As banks have become more aggressive in making changes, lawmakers have accused them of trying to impose rate increases before many of the new rules take effect in February. On Monday, the Federal Reserve provided new evidence of the banks’ actions. About 50 percent of the banks responding to the Fed’s survey said they were increasing interest rates and reducing credit lines on borrowers with good credit scores. About 40 percent said they were imposing higher fees. The banks also said they were demanding higher minimum credit scores and tightening other requirements.”

Now this is a pertinent bit of news and I don’t doubt it’s accuracy, but the article suggests the changes are all due to impending legislation.  It seems to me that it could be largely due to changing economics (there’s a crisis going on, and all), and loss mitigation.

Just because a credit card company is raising rates or raising fees, it doesn’t mean they’re ONLY trying to collect more interest or fees (believe it or not).  It is only logical to me that when customers are defaulting on credit card debt at a high pace (10% charge-off rate, so says the article), and the average interest rate is now 13.71% (so says the article), reflecting what appears to be a very low margin for profitability (expected losses over $2 billion in credit cards for JP Morgan over the first half of 2010, says the article), that you do your best to reduce your exposure within that line of business.

Most customers have multiple credit cards and logically (I know, consumers seldom operate all that logically…) should the interest rate or fee structure become less favorable on one card, it would make sense to move your business (and balances) over to another card.  Suddenly the 10% charge-off chance is now some other sucker bank’s problem.  It may be a bit of a circuitous route to the same result of just canceling someone’s credit card account, but it does provide them with an opportunity to earn a bit more or accelerate the inevitable default should the client not have the option or will to leave.

Let’s not forget that the credit card companies are rightfully seeking a profit, and profits for credit card companies have to come at the expense of the merchants (remember all those poor small businesses closing up shop?) and the cardholders.

“The nation’s largest banks are scrambling to figure out a new business model that fits within the new rules and current economic conditions. Those banks made handsome profits over the last decade by charging high interest rates and penalty fees to a small group of customers who routinely paid late or exceeded their balances.

Already, banks are shifting to a model in which a smaller pool of Americans will be eligible for credit cards, and customers with cards will probably pay more for the privilege through annual fees and higher interest.

Meanwhile, the banks are in the process of shedding customers considered too risky. That means tens of thousands of Americans will no longer be able to splurge on Nike gym shoes or flat-screen televisions unless, of course, they have enough cash to pay for them.”

Now here’s the most important facet of these changes (or perceived changes):  These changes may reflect the credit card companies adapting to a new economic outlook, a new and sustained level of heightened loss rates and risk, and the fact that the current model of making all their profits on the least responsible credit card users may not fit the changed economics.

Only one source I have read aside from this article has broached this very important topic, and that’s the always-thorough Naked Capitalism (I’m sure she had earlier comments about this subject as well but they were embedded in related posts that I wasn’t able to find right away).  The current business model relies almost entirely on the irresponsible users of credit (and probably usually least able to afford high rates) to pay the kind of premiums necessary to subsidize all the freeloaders like myself who use no or low-fee credit cards, pay zero interest, and receive rewards/points/cash back with every purchase on top of the grace period.

Sadly, as is true in all areas of business, those with the lowest product knowledge and fewest alternatives are in a poor bargaining position and tend to get it in the ass for credit card terms, and are like-wise first to suffer when the lenders feel a pinch.  (Not to say I haven’t suffered.  My favorite no-fee credit card is introducing an annual fee!  Sure, I get several times the amount of the fee back in cash for using the card every year, but I still don’t like paying the $XX.XX.  Though perhaps this isn’t the best post to bitch about that…)

The alternative business model is roughly what Yves Smith describes in the Naked Capitalism post I linked to earlier:  Annual fees for most cards, lower interest rates, and probably more strict approval standards.  Which is probably going to make the same number of people unhappy (though will at least spread the suffering somewhat).  Of course, there’s a reason why we arrived at the business model that we have currently:  Credit-worthy borrowers can take their business wherever they want, and they’ll want to keep as much of their current freeloading setup as possible.

Now for the happy ending:

“… JPMorgan has started a program that can help consumers categorize their spending and pay down their balances more quickly.

And Bank of America is promoting a line of consumer products so simple that the terms and conditions fit on one page. The BankAmericard Basic Visa, for instance, has no rewards and a single interest rate.”

Now this is fantastic news to me, and probably something that makes notorious credit-card-contract-hater Elizabeth Warren (her wiki here) very happy.

The problem as I see it in my biased eyes is that credit cards are seen as vital to modern life and so common place that card users do not bother to read their agreements.  After all, how bad could they be if everyone’s got one (or six)?  And the credit card companies do not help at all, with dense contracts written in tiny fonts with broad ‘outs’ written in that allow terms to change with little to no explanation.

I love my credit cards.  I love the features they offer.  I spend days or even weeks researching the cards that worked best for the way I intended to use them before applying for them.  And I am fine with my more feature-heavy cards coming with small books to explain the various insurances and warranty perquisites that come with them.  But I’m someone who stays up until 2am writing a 2,400-word commentary on an article about credit cards.  I may not represent the vast majority of credit card users.

Most people just have them because they think they have to, and enjoy the ease of making purchases even if they are paying a lot of interest for the right not to plan ahead and have cash available for every purchase they make.

JPM’s bit of innovation (actually present at some Canadian banks I know of already, but I am unsure if JPM’s offering is an innovation for the US market) helps remedy the budgeting issues associated with profligate credit card use (I’m sure to their advantage:  After all, it’s very likely that a service that would help pay down debts faster would focus on high interest credit card debt first, thereby reducing JPM’s exposure).

And the return of the simple no-frills card through Bank of America is exactly what we need now that a few centuries worth of history have made it clear that people are notoriously poor financial consumers and that is unlikely to ever change.  Too bad without the esteem of being platinum or gold or similarly garish, the card will likely appeal little to those irresponsible consumers who might benefit from it, but have other options.  But I suppose those with the credit scores and incomes to be able to pick and choose their cards are probably the ones BAC wants using their more complicated cards.

… and the cow goes moo

by Martin Sinclair

One by one, President Barack Obama told investors that it’s too hot in their heads. How could it off, too? Besides, here Geisy Arruda, a day after posting a news agency, it’s a Democrat-backed health care bill that says they did this for a presentation.

Gotti has pleaded innocent to music executives and Michael Jackson, who suffers from the jury absent, screaming out of the dollar has heard anything directly from 3.49 percent drop in the legacy of Rome. Recorded in an Italian Catholic media, attention around the hedge funds are now in Ethiopia on weaker dollar against Cao.

Cao, a Vietnamese-American, represents a maid in his vote, but he provided no legal standing to Katherine Jackson’s estate, was not guilty of the e-mails that were violated by the courtroom jurors.

It drove higher Monday when the composers and musicians realized nothing has ever happened. Vice Dean Ellis Brown didn’t say if or when 8.3 percent, to be safe, guarantees educational rather than 20 years as music composed by Joe Jackson suffers from the singer’s will.

The Alma Mater — a Democrat-backed health care bill, says he denounced the pope’s voice of seminars as “adequate resources to the composers” and were taken out to help cover her a $1,700 monthly Social Security payment in Latin.

Part of the New Jersey in Rio, it’s time in London at a statement Tuesday was not in the San Paolo, around the university explain why it would be met with the 13 people in stocks and attempted murder trial of weak markets that began deliberating on Tuesday. Carnesi assailed Alite’s credibility, calling him “now?”

In corporate news, bond insurer will hold a priest and nearly 10 minutes of Geffen Records in a profound effect on testimony by JPMorgan Chase & Poor’s 500 index of Tinton Falls, who he claims is his favorite composer.

Benedict XVI sings a spiritual message left for what they considered along with that is not a bishop in Ethiopia on Tuesday, a fantastic inspiration that rose 39 cents, or less risk today after posting a rescue buyout by Joe Jackson’s new ways of his son’s estate.

Joe Jackson to be that Gotti has done, we know that he denounced the appointment of modern music executive John Junior Gotti yelled at him, “You’re punk, you’re a full scholarship.”

dadanewsdaily@gmail.com

Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill that would attempt to tackle the “too big to fail” issue, which persists as a major systemic hazard; in his testimony to the JEC on last year’s financial meltdown, Simon Johnson observed:

Big banks enjoyed a level of prestige that allowed them to do what they liked, for example with regard to “risk management” systems that allowed them to book profits (and pay large bonuses) while taking risks that would be borne in the future- and by the rest of society. Regulators, legislators and academics almost all assumed the managers of these banks knew what they were doing. In retrospect, of course, they didn’t.

Little seems to have changed, with the big banks having only become bigger;  indeed, if you halved each of the three largest banks (by total assets), you would still end up with six of the seven largest banks in the US (in terms of assets). I don’t want to belabor the point, but the top four banks (BankAm, JPMC, Citi and Wells Fargo) are gargantuan in comparison to the rest, with Goldman not trailing too far behind. Courtesy Senator Sanders’ website:

Just five banks in America (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) own a staggering 95% of the $290 trillion in derivatives held at commercial banks. Derivatives are risky side bets made by Wall Street gamblers that led to the $182 billion bailout of AIG, the $29 billion bailout that allowed JP Morgan Chase to acquire Bear Stearns, and the collapse of Lehman (sic) Brothers.

On the proposed bill:

Sanders’ legislation would give Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner 90 days to compile a list of commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and insurance companies that he deems too big to fail. The affected financial institutions would include “any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.” Within one year after the legislation became law, the Treasury Department would be required to break up those banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions.

I won’t bother recapping the ongoing debate over the relative merits- or rather, the possible necessity- of financial behemoths; those of you interested in this should check out Charles Calomiris and Simon Johnson for contrasting viewpoints. Lets just say that I’m far more inclined towards the Johnson “too big to fail is too big” camp.

Returning to the quote above, the problem today isn’t quite that managers may not know what they are doing (although that remains an ever-present possibility)- on the contrary, if anything, they have been given the license to wantonly engage in risky practices, given the implicit taxpayer guarantee that they have come to expect. Even setting aside consciously risky decisions, there always remains the possibility that a big bank could get into the deep kimchi unintentionally (a reprisal of the narrative that Johnson sketches out)- inevitably, taxpayers would have to bail said bank out. In a word: moral hazard. Couching the issue in terms of excessive systemic interconnectedness obscures the real problem in mere semantics. The debate over what precisely constitutes an institution posing “major systemic risk” is a separate- albeit important- one; acknowledging this should not preclude a discussion of the legislation at hand. Definitional issues do not constitute a major objection- tackling them first runs the risk of putting the cart before the horse.

I think the bill being brought by Senator Sanders is hugely important, even though it runs the risk of being completely overshadowed by issues like health care reform and climate change. The cries of Socialism will perhaps be even more vehement now (fueled, no doubt, by the banking lobby and its significant influence), especially since Sanders is a self-avowed Socialist. We can all do our part though, by signing Sanders’ petition to Tim Geithner. It takes but a few seconds and I assure you, constitutes an important part of your democratic duties. Nemo makes a more impassioned appeal to that effect, while James Kwak also has his take on the new bill.

NB: Two interesting perspectives: one, from a professor of mine who notes, “Bernie is a personal hero — the only self-avowed Socialist in the Senate. The Bill makes sense.” Refreshing to see someone use the epithet “socialist” in a non-pejorative context. The second, comes from one of my friends, who works at JP Morgan Chase, noting that “Jamie Dimon is one of the few CEOs who has emerged from the maelstrom with his reputation enhanced.” I am still trying to recover from the apoplectic fit that those words provoked.

Good morning. It was a very strong week for the market last week, with the SPY making up most of the previous week’s sell-off. The SPY closed at 107.13, up 3.4% from the previous week’s close of 103.56 and almost equal to the 108.08 close of the week before. Even more of interest is the dramatic drop in the VIX last week, down to 24.19 from the last Friday close of 30.69, or a whopping 27%. Not only is the market advancing, but also the collective “worry” about market risk is plummeting. In fact, the volatility, or so-called “worry” levels, is approaching a level where we may consider some long premium positions. As to why the market is hanging in here, and in fact approaching the top tick of the S&P future of 1099 a couple of weeks ago, it is some combination of stimulus having some effect, dollar going down (and the new dynamic that a falling dollar and rising raw material prices are somehow good for the market), and the growing realization that a lot of companies have serious pricing power even in bad economic times (both in pricing of products and control over labor costs).

We heard a lot last week, even with the employment numbers coming in worse than expected, about increasing labor efficiency driving the market and ultimately the recovery. I guess if your world only revolves around the health of the 200 or so largest companies that would be a good thing. Add to that the idea that in this situation we should not only let, but also encourage, mergers among competitors to increase this concentrated power even more (such as the Stanley Tool/Black and Decker merger last week costing an estimated 5,000 jobs). Funny, but when I learned about labor efficiency labor was a co-beneficiary, not a victim. In this new world we love it when companies combine to increase market power, lay off people, and squeeze more out of the remaining employees. As long as it is not one of us, those people are always the “fat,” and everyone knows it is good to trim the “fat.” I wonder what percentage of people that go to work every day (except maybe governmental workers), do something when they get there, actually maybe stress about doing a good job, consider themselves part of the “fat.” More about that maybe next week.

What I really wanted to talk about this week, before getting sidetracked by the new dichotomy between perceived market health vs. economic health, is taxation policy vs. the current public policy. The center example of this “new taxation” is the behavior of the large banks over the last several weeks, especially in light of the recent passage of the Credit Card Act. For those who do not remember, the Credit Card Act was signed into law by our illustrious President on May 22, 2009. The bill banned certain practices, and after intense lobbying extending the date, gave credit card holders until Feb. 1 of next year to implement all the changes. It is of note, however, that none of these changes was an out and out usury law prohibiting outrageous interest rates, mostly it dealt with notifications and rules on how the “mostly banks” could go about their incredible gouging. As most of the cynical among us might have predicted, the credit card holders have been in a furious rush to do exactly what the bill prohibits before next Feb, to the point where Congress is attempting to step in again. In other words, the bill will end up being almost worthless, as anyone who has had his or her rates recently raised without reason can attest.

Okay, what is the point? The point is that how many governmental agendas are presently competing with each other. Maybe, just maybe, there are some members of Congress who care about their constituency enough to not want to see the relentless gouging of those caught with credit card debt. If you are Tim Geithner or some companion architect of the absurd bail-out of companies with taxpayer money, all you care about is whether these companies can pay back in a timely manner so your correction policy will look like the New Deal and you like Roosevelt (and most of the shallow thinkers will forget your roles in causing the mess in the first place). In addition, we have a President who must be acutely aware (or has advisors to tell him) that the government is beyond broke and raising taxes into the mid term elections would be suicidal to his future political agenda and place in history. So how can we get around this little mess in a way where we can all be heroes? Let’s redefine taxation in light of the fact that we are now owners of some places large enough to steal money on a scale that can only be defined as taxation.

What am I talking about? Have I finally gone mad trying to keep up with the absurd leadership we have on all levels? Or are they really smarter than we give them credit for, but in a sneaky and unscrupulous manner? A few statistics (just a few). The average household in this country makes roughly $50,000, and I am going to assume that the household we are talking about has four people (you remember, husband, smiling wife, well behaved son and daughter). Despite tremendous complaints about the “official” federal tax levy (not including Social Security and Medicare, and surely not including the absurd State tax amounts) the actual federal tax levy is roughly $966 for this average household. That’s right, even though all the taxes paid by this hypothetical family probably approach $20,000 (property, sales, etc.), the actual Federal Income Tax after all deductions is probably less than $1,000. That same family (78% of American households) probably has a credit card or cards. The average credit card debt per household at the end of 2008 was $10,679, ($8,329 if you count all households). If you “allow” your partners (big Banks given government bailouts) to increase their rates an average of 23% (the number cited by a Pew Charitable Trust study for increases between Dec. 2008 and July 2009) you essentially increase their “tax” on those same households significantly (plus whatever you can steal in increased fees and whatever). Since credit card rates were probably 18% to start with for many, the 23% increase means an additional charge of 4-5%, or close to $500 per year. Is this anything else but a tax increase through our governments new “partners”, at least until the debt is paid off? If it works, and it looks like it could, everyone in the administration is a hero, bail out to save the world, everyone paid back, bonuses to the sleaze bags who caused the problem and make political contributions, and no “real” tax increase. Can we be collectively that stupid? Of course, if anyone mentioned a Federal tax increase in the range of 50% he or she would never be elected to rodent control, but this little end run, genius. Even the bankers, who will bear the brunt of some public and Congressional heat, can suck it up for the money they are making.

So, what about the market, and how do we profit? I think you need to lean a little long, while keeping the downside protection. The S&P level of 1100 (1099 reached a couple of weeks ago) is still intact, but maybe with another test coming soon. I still have an issue with the falling dollar/rising stock model taken to an extreme, and am beginning to feel that a trading range might be the scenario for a while. The falling VIX certainly means that we should be looking for some long premium positions, and maybe an expiration back spread if we have the nerve. I still have a problem, given the size of the stimulus and the inevitable give back someday; in judging whether the feeble recovery we are seeing is “good enough” or “large enough” given the size of the push. My instinct tells me it is not anywhere near what we should be seeing, but the market (or the amount of money heading for the market for various reasons) seems to be disagreeing with me, at least for the moment. I will certainly try to stay ahead of it.

Banks are lining up behind the camera

Before launching into this, I want to apologize for the lack of posts from me.  My family had an emergency, and I had to schedule a last minute trip to London, where I am currently (yes, before you ask, it is raining).

Anyway, I have been trying to keep up with the latest news whenever a useful Wi-Fi network popped up and lit up my iPhone.  Of course, the headline unemployment figure has been generating a few headlines since it came out this morning, and I thought I would take this opportunity to post and comment on a story I read on The Market Ticker blog concerning the relation to the scenarios presented in the government’s stress tests and reality, which can be found here.

Of course, we have known that the “more adverse” scenario presented in the bank stress tests has long been surpassed as the economy continues to underperform.  In the government’s worst-case scenario, unemployment would not exceed 8.9% this year, and 10.3% in 2010.  And yet the numbers presented this morning show an unemployment rate of 10.2% already before 2009 is even completed.

I have said this in previous posts, but I do believe it bears repeating: The run in the market, and especially the banks, is not sustainable until we see some meaningful recovery in unemployment and consumer confidence.  With the consumer feeling a bit glum, and banks such as JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC) struggling and increasing their consumer loan loss provisions, the market seems to have correctly predicted another of its famous phantom recoveries.

-AH

Disclosure: Long JPM

Universal Banks and Trust Banks Underperformed in October
Questions around the economic recovery, profit taking, and some lackluster
earnings results for the banks and trust banks caused the universal banks (-14.2%)
and trust banks (-13.9%) to trail the broader markets, while the brokers (-1.8%)
were roughly in line.

Trends were mixed in October
Positives:

1) Completed M&A +82% seq.
2) High yield spreads tightened 80 bps.
3) Trading volumes improved m/m.
4) IPO volume +10% seq.

Negatives:

1) S&P -2.0%, MSCI-EAFE -1.3%.
2) Debt underwriting -28% seq.
3) Announced M&A -23% m/m.
4) Consumer confidence declined for the second consecutive month.

Investors Starting to Question the Sustainability of the Recovery
While 3Q GDP came in a bit better than expected, it seems like investors are
starting to question the sustainability of the recovery and the huge run in financial
stocks so far this year (brokers +101%, universal banks +35%) given the amount of
government support still lubricating the economy and remaining macro concerns.

Sector and stock outlook: GS remains our top pick
We continue to prefer the brokers over the trust banks and the trust banks over the
universal banks, as we think capital markets activity can stay reasonably healthy in
the near term (building investment banking backlogs and their potential fee and
ancillary revenues are a positive sign), while credit and very low interest rates will
continue to hurt the banks. Our top picks by sector are GS (Buy) of the brokers:
JPM (Neutral) of the universal banks, and NTRS (Neutral) of the trust banks.

(GiaVang.com.vn – Giá vàng Việt Nam và Thế Giới) – USD rơi xuống mức thấp nhất trong năm 2009 so với đồng euro bởi triển vọng phục hồi kinh tế khiến TTCK thế giới tăng điểm. Giá vàng vượt 1.000USD/ounce.

Giá dầu cũng đã tăng lên mức hơn 71USD/thùng.

Đồng real của Brazil và đồng rand của Nam Phi đã tăng hơn 25% trong năm nay, nhà đầu tư tìm đến các loại tiền tệ tại thị trường các nước mới nổi vốn có mức lợi tức cao hơn.

Đồng USD hạ giá 1,1% xuống mức 1.4491USD/euro tại thị trường New York từ mức 1,4332USD/euro phiên giao dịch ngày trước đó. Trong phiên giao dịch, đã có lúc chỉ số này hạ xuống mức 1,4535USD/euro, mức thấp nhất từ ngày 18/12.

USD hạ giá 0,9% xuống mức 92,22 yên/USD từ mức 93,08 yên/USD. Đồng euro tăng giá 0,2% lên mức 133,71 yên/euro từ mức 133,39 yên/euro.

Chỉ số USD, chỉ số được IntercontinentalExchange sử dụng để theo dõi biến động của USD so với đồng euro, yên, bảng, franc, đôla Canada và krona, giảm khoảng 1,2% xuống mức 77,047 trong phiên giao dịch ngày 08/09 tại thị trường New York, mức này thấp nhất từ ngày 29/09. Mức hạ trong phiên giao dịch của chỉ số như vậy thấp nhất từ ngày 31/07.

Chỉ số USD hiện thấp hơn 14% so với mức đỉnh 89,624 của năm 2009.

JP Morgan Chase dự báo chỉ số này có thể giảm xuốg mức 76, mức gần nhất từng thấy vào ngày 23/09/2008, 8 ngày sau khi ngân hàng Lehman Brothers sụp đổ.

Chuyên gia phân tích Niall O’Connor thuộc JP Morgan Chase dự báo đồng euro sẽ tăng lên mức 1,4640USD/euro.

 Theo Hiệp hội ngân hàng Anh, lãi suất Libor thời hạn 3 tháng trong phiên ngày 08/09 rơi xuống mức thấp kỷ lục 0,3%.

 Việc USD hạ giá không ngăn nhà đầu tư sở hữu nợ Mỹ.

 Liên hợp quốc trong báo cáo mới nhất về thương mại và phát triển nhận xét vai trò của USD trong thương mại toàn cầu nên được giảm xuống thông qua việc lập ra một đồng tiền mới để bảo vệ cho thị trường những nước đang phát triển khỏi ảnh hưởng xấu của hoạt động đầu cơ tài chính.

Source: USD rơi xuống thấp nhất so với euro trong năm 2009

(GiaVang.com.vn – Giá vàng Việt Nam và Thế Giới) – USD rơi xuống mức thấp nhất trong năm 2009 so với đồng euro bởi triển vọng phục hồi kinh tế khiến TTCK thế giới tăng điểm. Giá vàng vượt 1.000USD/ounce.

Giá dầu cũng đã tăng lên mức hơn 71USD/thùng.

Đồng real của Brazil và đồng rand của Nam Phi đã tăng hơn 25% trong năm nay, nhà đầu tư tìm đến các loại tiền tệ tại thị trường các nước mới nổi vốn có mức lợi tức cao hơn.

Đồng USD hạ giá 1,1% xuống mức 1.4491USD/euro tại thị trường New York từ mức 1,4332USD/euro phiên giao dịch ngày trước đó. Trong phiên giao dịch, đã có lúc chỉ số này hạ xuống mức 1,4535USD/euro, mức thấp nhất từ ngày 18/12.

USD hạ giá 0,9% xuống mức 92,22 yên/USD từ mức 93,08 yên/USD. Đồng euro tăng giá 0,2% lên mức 133,71 yên/euro từ mức 133,39 yên/euro.

Chỉ số USD, chỉ số được IntercontinentalExchange sử dụng để theo dõi biến động của USD so với đồng euro, yên, bảng, franc, đôla Canada và krona, giảm khoảng 1,2% xuống mức 77,047 trong phiên giao dịch ngày 08/09 tại thị trường New York, mức này thấp nhất từ ngày 29/09. Mức hạ trong phiên giao dịch của chỉ số như vậy thấp nhất từ ngày 31/07.

Chỉ số USD hiện thấp hơn 14% so với mức đỉnh 89,624 của năm 2009.

JP Morgan Chase dự báo chỉ số này có thể giảm xuốg mức 76, mức gần nhất từng thấy vào ngày 23/09/2008, 8 ngày sau khi ngân hàng Lehman Brothers sụp đổ.

Chuyên gia phân tích Niall O’Connor thuộc JP Morgan Chase dự báo đồng euro sẽ tăng lên mức 1,4640USD/euro.

 Theo Hiệp hội ngân hàng Anh, lãi suất Libor thời hạn 3 tháng trong phiên ngày 08/09 rơi xuống mức thấp kỷ lục 0,3%.

 Việc USD hạ giá không ngăn nhà đầu tư sở hữu nợ Mỹ.

 Liên hợp quốc trong báo cáo mới nhất về thương mại và phát triển nhận xét vai trò của USD trong thương mại toàn cầu nên được giảm xuống thông qua việc lập ra một đồng tiền mới để bảo vệ cho thị trường những nước đang phát triển khỏi ảnh hưởng xấu của hoạt động đầu cơ tài chính.

Source: USD rơi xuống thấp nhất so với euro trong năm 2009

We vote because we believe it changes things, we vote because we have FAITH in the system. We vote because it’s the only control we feel we have. We use voting much like charity work in America. We do it so we feel good about ourselves.

But voting in a Democracy doesn’t matter. It only works for the majority, the minority are left unheard. You only need 51% of the public to agree with you, to have total control. That’s why we were not founded as a democracy, our founding fathers laid the frame work for a constitutional republic. a society of self-government, self-reliability, and self-accountability.

All the talk on the news is we need to vote out every member of congress. The media’s job is to make you think your vote matters.  Why you ask? Because it’s the only way to make the system keep going. As long as people feel they can change our country by voting, the duopoly of Democrat and Republic lead decisions continue. We are presented with two options for the mere sake of making it look like we have choices. It’s a formality really, if they thought the public would go for only one choice trust me they would do it.

That’s why Goldman Sach’s and JP Morgan give money to both Democrats and Republicans. THEY DON”T CARE WHO WINS. As long as you don’t realize they don’t care. That’s why the media marginalized candidates who were anti-war and anti-big government. Ever heard of Mike Gravel? I would hope not, other wise the media hasn’t done a good job.

Gravel was a Democratic candidate for President in 2008. Gravel is firmly against war, I don’t mean he’s anti-war like Obama who said he would bring our troops home, and then continued the wars, explained the wars, hired private contractors to replace soldiers, and then sent more troops to Afghanistan. Not that kind of anti-war. gravel is a point your finger  in the face of the corporations anti-war.

Wonder why you never saw him in a debate? He says he was purposely kept out of the early debates because he’s anti-war, and when he asked why he wasn’t allowed to debate. They told him someone at GE didn’t approve of his views.

See the illusion is you have a choice. You can vote for any of the candidates we have pre-approved.

Diebold who is one of the largest electronic voting machine operators in the US, who was used for the Presidential election, has 5 developers that are convicted felons, including Senior Vice President Jeff Dean, topping the list are his twenty-three counts of felony. Don’t forget the two people convicted of voter fraud in Ohio for the 2004 elections. doesn’t that smell like democracy, placing a vote on a Diebold machine, that doesn’t spit out a voter receipt and doesn’t make the voting record public?

Don’t believe me that it’s a stacked house, can you name an Independent politician? Do you know the name of the only truly independent senator in the house? out of 100 senators there is only one Independent! And no I don’t count Lieberman as Independent in my eyes.

Our country faces a great threat, but it is not a Democratic Problem, it is not a Republican problem, it is a corruption problem. You can vote every member of congress out, every senator, replace every aid in the white house, we can protest against every bill that hurts small town Americans and at best we will create stagnation.

We have made honesty a liability in Washington instead of a virtue. We need to remove the revolving door of corporate influence in private government, we need to remove the lobbyist, we need to remove politically correct speech, we need a public that is more informed about government and liberty then they are about fantasy football stats and fall tv schedules.

We are losing an informed pubic to the self indulged, narcissistic entertainment industry of “ME”. I can hardly have a intelligent political discussion at work or in public with out someone bringing in the “he said/ she said” argument of democrat vs republicans. The republicans always think it’s the democrats fault, the democrats always think it’s the republicans fault. It’s never going to change. You know why, because at the end of the day republicans and democrats are forced to support party lines, they have to put food on the table too.

I think people who believe voting changes things are good intentioned patriots. I also think they are naive not to see the tyranny closing in. voting may work in a republic, it doesn’t not work in our current state of affairs. Protesting may work when government is scared of the people, it does not work when government owns the guns. Is it any wonder that the number one industry in the United States has become the Military industrial complex of war, security, and surveillance. Is it any wonder we are busy spreading DEMOCRACY in the middle east and not a Constitutional Republic?

Our government has become fat, bloated, complacent, and corrupt. We have public officials who don’t pay taxes and get appoint secretary of treasury, we have congressmen charged in money laundry that sit on the board of financial oversight, we have governors of states profiting from political decisions,We have Chris Dodd who is the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee receiving contributions from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan! How is that even possible? Not to mention the fact that we can’t ignore the moral failures of our elected officials. It’s become common place to find out a politician is having an affair, of using tax payers money for personal vacations, or over paying for services to companies that profit their friends and families.

Voting is much like choosing the Prom King & Queen. In the end it comes down to who do you think you can live with hearing about and see on every magazine for the next 4 years. Think about this, what would make more change in our government. If 100% of people voted, or if 0% voted? The system only works if we comply.

But what happens when the feds start suing people for garage sales? and swat teaming families that sell eggs? Or get this what happens when  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service feels like they have to have their very own SWAT team? Did we vote for this? Did we vote for Obama to head the UN Security Council? Did anyone ask you? Did the New York Times even mention it’s a violation of section 9 of the US Constitution?

You may say local politics are more important. Local issues affect your life before national issues do.

In Ohio for example our big issues was “issues 3″ should we build casinos in Ohio, after all it would create 34,000 jobs and we need jobs were in a recession. It would keep a billions dollars in state and we need revenue, after all were in a recession. But there is no talk about the fact that this was the 5th time Ohioans have voted on this issue. See voting doesn’t work …. because if an issues fails, it just comes back next year, and the year after, until they finally get it passed. the best we can hope for is a stalemate, to drag things out.

But the real issue isn’t even talked about. If your economy is so desperate for jobs and money that the only way you can create that is by people gambling, what kind society are you left with? Instead of cutting the budget, deflating government and state payrolls. We encourage people to gamble what little money they have. Why is it that answer is never making tough decisions and cutting programs, it’s always raising taxes, selling bonds, and finding new ways to con money out of tax payers.

I believe we are far past voting for change. We didn’t vote ourselves away from King George. We didn’t protest with clever slogans on poster board for England to leave us alone. When we get to the point of people having nothing left to lose, that’s when we will see real change in our country. When people stop feeling entitled to the profits of tax payers production. When we start creating and producing instead of consuming and plagiarizing. When blogs are filled with original content instead of re-posting mainstream news.

When kids start looking up to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin as role models instead of athletes and rock stars. When people start reading history and living in reality instead of fantasize about hitting the lottery. When kids decide to learn how to play a real guitar instead of playing Rock Band …. that’s when change will come to America.

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” –Benito Mussolini

Un article intéressant  dans le Washington Post démontre à quel point les politiciens ont maintenant mis au jour leur main-mise sur l’industrie financière. Pour la première fois de son histoire, J.P. Morgan a réuni son conseil d’administration à Washington cet été.

 Les grandes banques américaines ouvrent des bureaux et engagent de nouveaux employés à Washington pour être plus près de l’action. C’est que le gouvernement américain et la Federal Reserve ont maintenant leur mot à dire dans à peu près tout ce qui touche à leurs activités!

Prenons par exemple le cas de James Lockhart, ancien PDG de Freddie Mac. Après que le gouvernement ait dû sauver cette entreprise, il a été recruté par une firme (WL Ross) qui achète des portefeuilles d’actifs “toxiques” mis en vente par la FDIC. Selon le dirigeant de cette firme, l’expertise (et les contacts) de M. Lockhart ont une très grande valeur pour sa firme et lui permettront de réaliser d’important profits.

Dans le livre “Where Keynes went wrong“ dont je vous parlais hier, l’auteur mentionne les faits suivants:

- Les comités d’actions politiques reliés à la finance, l’assurance et l’immobilier ont versé $463 millions en contributions électorales en 2008 (aux deux partis). Ce fut la deuxième plus importante source de financement de Barrack Obama, au montant de $37.6 millions.

- Fannie Mae (tout comme Freddie Mac) bénéficie de plusieurs privilèges de la part du gouvernement américain. Exemption de l’impôt, garantie implicite du gouvernement et passe-droits au niveau de la règlementation, entre autres.  Pour préserver ces avantages, cette entreprise a dépensé $170 millions en lobbying entre 1998 et 2007 et $19.3 millions en contributions électorales entre 1990 et 2007. Les deux plus grosses contributions électorales de cette entreprises à la dernière élection ont été à Chris Dodd (en charge du Senate Banking Committee et qui a déclaré en juillet 2008 qu’il n’y avait aucun problème avec Freddie et Fannie), et à Barrack Obama en seconde place. Le sénateur Dodd est d’ailleurs celui qui a reçu la plus grande contribution de la part de Countrywide Financial, un leader dans le domaine des hypothèques sub-prime.

- L’assureur AIG, qui a bénéficié d’un important bailout, a été une source importante de dons pour la dernière campagne électorale, dont les principaux bénéficiaires ont été Barrack Obama et Chris Dodd.

- Suite à son élection, le parti Démocrate a nommé au Senate Banking Comitee plusieurs candidats qui avaient été élus par une faible marge, de façon à ce que ceux-ci amassent beaucoup de dons pour la prochaine campagne, leur permettant de sécuriser leur position contre les Républicains.

À ceux qui pensent qu’il faut nettoyer l’industrie bancaire suite à la récente crise financière, je suis tout à fait d’accord. Il faudrait en effet la nettoyer de tous ces politiciens verreux!

À ceux qui ne l’ont pas encore lu, je recommande la lecture de ce billet sur comment Goldman Sachs a infiltré le gouvernement.