View Story | 10 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
There is not much coverage out there; Google search gives primarily wire-services links.
MSM - next to nothing: BBC's (current) fp story on the IMF does not mention it with a word. Instead, it paints a fairly rosy picture for 2008. Can't find the story on CNN's front page at all.
by ask on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 05:51:24 AM PDT
Mike Whitney - It's Time for the Banks to Face the Hangman
Officials in the Treasury Dept----working with their colleagues at Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America---have concocted a scheme to rescue the banks from their massive losses in mortgage-backed securities. The group is planning to set up a $100 billion emergency fund which will purchase non-performing assets for short term debt. In truth, the fund is a bailout which provides the financial giants with an excuse for not reporting their enormous losses from bad bets. The story first appeared in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal and was followed on Monday with a second headline piece: "RESCUE READIED BY BANKS IS BET TO SPUR MARKET" WSJ: "The high stakes plan to RESCUE BANKS FROM LOSSES on mortgage securities amounts to a big bet that a consortium of financial giants—AT THE PRODDING OF THE US GOVERNMENT—can PERSUADE INVESTORS TO POUR MORE MONEY INTO THE TROUBLED CREDIT MARKET." That’s right; the Treasury Dept is directly involved in a scam that saves the banks while trying to "persuade" investors to "pour more money" into toxic mortgage-backed sludge. Treasury Dept officials clearly have a different idea of "moral hazard" than the rest of us.
Officials in the Treasury Dept----working with their colleagues at Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America---have concocted a scheme to rescue the banks from their massive losses in mortgage-backed securities. The group is planning to set up a $100 billion emergency fund which will purchase non-performing assets for short term debt. In truth, the fund is a bailout which provides the financial giants with an excuse for not reporting their enormous losses from bad bets.
The story first appeared in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal and was followed on Monday with a second headline piece:
"RESCUE READIED BY BANKS IS BET TO SPUR MARKET"
WSJ: "The high stakes plan to RESCUE BANKS FROM LOSSES on mortgage securities amounts to a big bet that a consortium of financial giants—AT THE PRODDING OF THE US GOVERNMENT—can PERSUADE INVESTORS TO POUR MORE MONEY INTO THE TROUBLED CREDIT MARKET."
That’s right; the Treasury Dept is directly involved in a scam that saves the banks while trying to "persuade" investors to "pour more money" into toxic mortgage-backed sludge. Treasury Dept officials clearly have a different idea of "moral hazard" than the rest of us.
and...
How bad is it? An article in yesterday’s Financial Times said that, "Only $9.9 billion of home equity loan securitizations have come to market since July 1---A 95% DECLINE FROM THE $200.9 BILLION IN THE FIRST HALF OF THIS YEAR AND A ROUGHLY 92% DECREASE FROM THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR." The banks are in trouble. Big trouble. Main sources of revenue have dried up overnight and they’re stuck with hundreds of billions of debt. That’s why the papers broke the story on Saturday when there was NO chance of triggering a stock market crash.
How bad is it?
An article in yesterday’s Financial Times said that, "Only $9.9 billion of home equity loan securitizations have come to market since July 1---A 95% DECLINE FROM THE $200.9 BILLION IN THE FIRST HALF OF THIS YEAR AND A ROUGHLY 92% DECREASE FROM THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR."
The banks are in trouble. Big trouble. Main sources of revenue have dried up overnight and they’re stuck with hundreds of billions of debt. That’s why the papers broke the story on Saturday when there was NO chance of triggering a stock market crash.
and
Wall Street avoids transparency like the plague. That is to be expected. But what about the government? It’s the government’s job to protect the investor and maintain the integrity of the system. Is that what Treasury Dept is doing or are they "LURING investors to buy debt issued by the rescue fund as part of the plan"? (quote from the Wall Street Journal) "Luring"? Is that how Paulson sees it; like luring turkeys to the chopping block with a trail of bread crumbs? The idea of protecting the little guy has never occurred to anyone in the Bush administration. Their job is to shift wealth from one class to the other via equity bubbles and government bailouts----anything that advances the corporate agenda.
Wall Street avoids transparency like the plague. That is to be expected. But what about the government? It’s the government’s job to protect the investor and maintain the integrity of the system. Is that what Treasury Dept is doing or are they "LURING investors to buy debt issued by the rescue fund as part of the plan"? (quote from the Wall Street Journal)
"Luring"? Is that how Paulson sees it; like luring turkeys to the chopping block with a trail of bread crumbs?
The idea of protecting the little guy has never occurred to anyone in the Bush administration. Their job is to shift wealth from one class to the other via equity bubbles and government bailouts----anything that advances the corporate agenda.
I love reading Mike Whitney's articles about the financial markets. He cuts right through all the bullshit.
by dantyrant on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 06:11:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I liked the article. What I find interesting in the news this weekend is the growing resistance to the bailout attempt.
by ask on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 06:35:05 AM PDT
Greenspan weighed in on that, too..
Henry C K Liu has two great articles on the overall picture:
SUPER CAPITALISM, SUPER IMPERIALISM PART 1: A Structural Link
Robert B Reich, former US Secretary of Labor and resident neo-liberal in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1997, wrote in the September 14, 2007 edition of The Wall Street Journal an opinion piece, "CEOs Deserve Their Pay", as part of an orchestrated campaign to promote his new book: Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Afred A Knopf).
SUPERCAPITALISM, SUPER IMPERIALISM PART 2: Deregulation: Global war on labor By Henry C K Liu
The long-range consequence of the Carter deregulation policies and practices that had begun during 1978-1982 was magnified during the Reagan period of 1980-88, with greater emphasis on changing the tax regime to favor the rich, industry deregulation to lower prices by lowering quality, and a shift of power from unions to management.
by junta0201 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 06:49:00 AM PDT
by dantyrant on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 07:57:48 AM PDT
When the big players are going to lose money somehow the consumer will pay more, lose more and suffer more. The losses are the only thing that trickles down.
"I'm not sure my snark shovel will stand up to that load." Crashing Vor
by tobendaro on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 07:55:36 AM PDT
America vetoes G7's dollar alert
European finance ministers this weekend failed in their bid to slap down the United States for allowing the dollar to plunge to record lows against the euro.
by junta0201 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 06:50:51 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 10 comments