Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - How Do you Feel?

How Do You Feel?
by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 70 = 16,912
SPX – 8 = 1969
NAS – 2 = 4442
10 YR YLD  - .03 = 2.46%
OIL - .63 = 101.04
GOLD – 4.70 = 1299.80
SILV un = 20.66

How are you feeling? Are you confident? Apparently more people are. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index increase to 90.9 in July, up from 86.4 in June; it’s the highest level in almost 7 years; it marks a significant rebound from the February 2009 low of 25.3. The people who compile the index say: “Strong job growth helped boost consumers’ assessment of current conditions, while brighter short-term outlooks for the economy and jobs, and to a lesser extent personal income, drove the gain in expectations,” and the improved confidence “suggests the recent strengthening in growth is likely to continue into the second half of this year.”

Home prices dropped in May compared to April. The S&P/Case Shiller composite index of 20 metropolitan areas declined 0.3% in May on a seasonally adjusted basis, its first decline since January 2012. Prices in the 20 cities rose 9.3% year over year, the slowest year-over-year gain since February 2013. The Phoenix area posted a 0.4% increase from April to May, non-seasonally adjusted.

In a separate report form the Commerce Department, home ownership rates dropped to 64.8% in the second quarter from 65% in the first quarter.

A fairly startling report was published today by the Urban Institute and TransUnion, the credit reporting firm, showing more than one-third (35%) of Americans with credit files had debt in collections in 2013. Non-mortgage delinquent debt totals $11.23 trillion. Which sounds like a lot, and it is, but it’s down from $12.68 trillion in delinquent debt in 2009; this includes debts such as credit cards, auto loans, student loans, utility bills, or even a phone bill or gym membership.  The study looked at debts that had been reported to a credit bureau as delinquent, and turned over to collection; that means the debt is at least 180 days old, but it also means the debt can stay on the credit report for up to 7 years, maybe longer. The share of people with debt 30 days past due is about 5.3%. What this means is that when a debt becomes past due, it lingers on a credit report.

The report on delinquent debt may tell us more about debt collection methods than about deadbeat American consumers. It is very easy for a company to turn over a debt to a credit rating bureau or a debt collection company; it is very hard for a consumer to get a debt removed from a credit report, even if the debt is disputed, or in many instances, even when the debt is paid. Consumers filed 204,000 complaints with the Federal Trade Commission last year, up nearly 3% from 2012, even though the amount of delinquent debt dropped. The most common complaint concerned debt collectors that lied about the amounts a consumer owed and the nature of the delinquency.

The European Union has imposed new sanctions on Russia for its involvement in supporting separatists in Ukraine. The US also toughened its sanctions further. The latest American actions took aim at more Russian banks and a large defense firm, but they also went further than past moves by blocking future technology sales to Russia’s oil industry in an effort to inhibit its ability to develop future resources. The Euro Union agreed to restrictions on trade of equipment for the oil and defense sectors, and "dual use" technology with both defense and civilian purposes. Russia's state run banks would be barred from raising funds in European capital markets. The measures would be reviewed in three months. Previously Europe had imposed sanctions only on individuals and organizations accused of direct involvement in threatening Ukraine, and had shied away from wider "sectoral sanctions."

The orchestrated actions on both sides of the Atlantic were designed to demonstrate solidarity in the face of what American and European officials say has been a stark escalation by Russia in the insurgency in eastern Ukraine. Until now, European leaders have resisted the broader sorts of actions they agreed to today.

Though Europe’s commerce with Russia will probably slump because of the sanctions, the measures are expected to hit Russia more severely, especially the restrictions on Russian banks’ ability to raise money in Europe and the United States. European companies have been warning for some time that their earnings could suffer because of sanctions against Russia. Today, the oil company BP warned that sanctions could hurt earnings. BP owns a 19.75% stake in the Russian oil company Rosneft.

We are about halfway through second quarter earnings season. Here are a few of today’s reports:

The pharmaceutical company, Pfizer posted earnings that beat estimates, while revenue dropped; they also said they expect earnings to drop in the third quarter. Merck had a similar story, beating earnings estimates while revenue slipped. United Parcel Service missed profit forecasts, even as profits and revenue were higher than a year ago. Herbalife, the multi-level marketed nutritional supplement company posted weak earnings after the close yesterday; shares were clobbered today. Corning, the glass making company reported a sharp drop in earnings due to acquisition costs; also clobbered.

Twitter reported a net loss of $145 million, or 24 cents a share, compared to a loss of $42 million a year ago. More people used the Twitterverse during the World Cup; revenue was up 124%, but then the users fade away; globally, usage was down 7% from a year ago. Twitter shares have jumped about 30% in after-hours trading. Go figure.

The Federal Reserve FOMC started its two-day meeting today. They will issue a statement tomorrow. The Fed is in the midst of reducing the amount of money it is pumping into the financial system by way of large purchases of mortgage backed securities and Treasuries, a process of tapering the Quantitative Easing. So far, the Fed has reduced purchases from $85 billion a month to $35 billion a month, and tomorrow they are expected to drop that down to $25 billion a month. QE is scheduled to end in October.

Then the Fed will shift their focus to raising its target for short-term interest rates, which have been near zero for more than 5 years. The Fed has already said they will take their time in raising rates. That exit from an accommodative policy is considered dangerous, and today the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, said it could reduce output in the United States by as much as 2% through 2016.

Volatility in the US could ripple through to emerging markets and likewise depress growth, but even worse; cutting growth by as much as 9% in more vulnerable developing countries due to higher interest rates and tighter financial conditions; and then it gets worse, with larger declines coming in time due to lower productivity, weaker trade, and falling commodity prices.

In addition to when the Fed will raise rates, it is also important to consider how high they will raise rates, and if they will wait long enough for liftoff to occur first. Liftoff is when the US economy has regained its strength and momentum and is able to cope with higher rates because of its economic strength. Fear of inflation could prompt the Fed to raise rates before liftoff; there is an even greater chance the Fed will raise rates before emerging markets could bear the burden of higher rates. If the Fed gets it wrong, we could end up stuck in sluggish or permanently lower growth.

Swiss bank UBS and German bank Deutsche Bank have disclosed that they are facing inquiries from the New York attorney general’s office. The UBS inquiry deals with dark pools, or alternative trading platforms, generally used by larger institutional clients such as pension funds and hedge funds, trying to hide orders from public observation. At its core, the dark pools are a form of price manipulation. Deutsche Bank is facing inquiry into high frequency trading and dark pools.

The Financial Times reports: “The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is stepping up pressure on the biggest banks to improve their ethics and culture, after investigations into the alleged rigging of benchmark rates led officials to conclude bankers had not learnt lessons from the financial crisis…

“Fed officials were surprised that some of that reported behavior occurred after the 2008 crisis, leading them to believe bankers had not curbed their poor conduct. To make sure the biggest banks are paying enough attention to ethics and culture, NY Fed bank evaluations have begun incorporating new questions emphasizing such issues. Topics include whether the right performance structure is in place to punish bad behavior, especially when it comes to compensation.”

Well, that is just great, the NY Fed suggests banks pay smaller bonuses when they encounter unethical behavior by the banksters. We’ll file that one under “Cruel and Unusual Draconian Punishment”.

But if you’re really looking for a funny story about banksters, check out the New York Times Dealbook. It seems the banksters are cashing in on advising companies how to do inversion deals to evade taxes. Inversions are behind the recent rash of merger deals in which major US corporations have renounced their citizenship in search of a lower tax bill offshore. It is important to understand that inversion does not in any meaningful sense involve American business moving overseas; all they’re doing is dodging taxes on those profits.

Investment banks are estimated to have collected, or will soon collect, nearly $1 billion in fees over the last three years advising and persuading American companies to move the address of their headquarters abroad (without actually moving).

The leaders in this growing field include Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup; they’ve made hundreds of millions aggressively promoting these transactions to major corporations, arguing that such deals need to be completed quickly before Washington tries to block them. These same banks received hundreds of billions from US taxpayers in the form of bailouts. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates these inversion deals are expected to cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion over the next decade.

Friday, March 14, 2014 - The Circle of Life

The Circle of Life

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 43 = 16,065
SPX – 5 = 1841
NAS – 15 = 4245
10 YR YLD - .01 = 2.64%
OIL + .81 = 99.01
GOLD + 10.90 = 1383.00
SILV + .29 = 21.56

In economic news, the early-March consumer sentiment index fell to 79.9. That’s down from a final February reading of 81.6 but the latest number is within the range of numbers posted since November.

A separate report from the Labor Department shows the producer price index dropped o.1% last month. The PPI measures inflation at the wholesale level. Final demand for goods rose 0.4% in February. Final demand for services dropped 0.3%. Producer prices excluding volatile food and energy costs fell 0.2%. In the 12 months through February, producer prices increased 0.9%, the smallest one-year gain since May 2013. Inflation is not a concern. The economy is still too sluggish to generate inflation.

There are two big news stories of the day: Flight 370 and Ukraine. We don’t know anything about either. A total absence of actual information about the missing Malaysian flight is not in any way hindering 24 hour news coverage of the story. Facts have given way to fantastic fantasizing about everything from terrorism to hidden island airstrips to alien abductions. The news networks have been gathering tons of erroneous and conflicting reports which they immediately pass to their viewers. They must think we’re all morons.

Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov wrapped up meetings in London by announcing they have no common vision on the crisis in Ukraine. Russia will go forward with a referendum vote on Crimean sovereignty on Sunday. Monday will be a strange day as we watch the markets try to weave a narrative.

The Swiss bank UBS said it will conduct an internal review of its precious metals business amid expanding regulatory investigations into potential manipulation of interest rates and the price of commodities and currencies. European regulators began looking at other benchmark rates, including for gold and silver, as part of an outgrowth of its investigation of rigging of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, and other global interest rate benchmarks. The process of setting the benchmark price for gold in London dates to 1919. It is set twice a day by five firms that serve as market makers; those market makers are: Barclays, Societe Generale, Deusche Bank, Scotiabank, and HSBC.

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority said that after an investigation of nine banks that were part of the local consortium making daily submissions to determine the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, which is used as a benchmark to price corporate loans, household mortgages and other types of debt; only UBS was found to have tried to manipulate the rate, but the regulators conclude that they were not good at rigging the rate, so no fines have been levied.

Today the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp sued 16 of the world's largest banks, accusing them of cheating dozens of other now defunct banks by manipulating the Libor interest rate. The big global banks broke certain swaps contracts they had entered into with the now-closed banks by separately colluding to rig the Libor rate to which the contracts were tied. Some of the big banks have already paid fines to resolve the charges; but the big banks are also being sued by investors and other who claim they lost money due to the manipulation.

A federal judge last March dismissed many of those claims that were based on antitrust law, but has yet to rule on cases that rely on the "breach of contract" theory used by the FDIC.

The Inspector General for the Department of Justice has released a report that basically says the crackdown on mortgage fraud is a joke. In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “mortgage fraud crimes have reached crisis proportions, but we are fighting back.” The only problem is it didn’t happen. More money was given to the FBI, but the inspector general’s report shows that the FBI considered mortgage fraud to be its lowest-ranked national criminal priority.

Holder announced in 2012 that prosecutors had charged more than 530 people over the previous year in mortgage fraud related cases, but the new report says the actual number of cases was 107. Yep, the regulators are now cooking the books.

Yesterday we reported that Wall Street bonuses grew 15% last year to more than $26.7 billion, or an average of $164,000 per employee, according to the New York Comptroller; it marked the third highest bonus payout on record. The average salary including bonuses in 2012 was $360,700, or more than five times greater than the rest of the private sector. The average Wall Street bonus is now 7 times larger than it was 30 years ago. Meanwhile the median household income has been stagnant for the past 30 years.

People who park their savings in these big banks accept a lower interest rate on deposits or loans than they require from America’s smaller banks. That’s because smaller banks are riskier places to park money. Smaller banks won’t be bailed out if they get into trouble; big banks are too big to fail. That implied government protection is like a hidden subsidy for the big banks, and it affords them a competitive advantage, and allows them to rake in more profits than smaller rivals.

How large is this hidden subsidy? Two IMF researchers have calculated it’s about eight tenths of a percentage point; and based on the total amount of money parked at the 10 biggest Wall Street banks that works out to a subsidy of about $83 billion a year. The top 5 banks account for $64 billion of the $83 billion subsidy; and that pretty much equals the top 5 banks average annual profits. Bottom line, no subsidy, no bonus pool.

Meanwhile, I almost missed this story from Tuesday. In Vermont, 15 towns have voted to support the creation of a public bank in Vermont, calling for the state legislature to establish such a bank and urging passage of legislation designed to begin its implementation. The specific proposal under consideration, Senate Bill 204, would turn an existing agency, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, into a public bank that would accept deposits and issue loans for in-state projects.

Currently, the only state in the US to maintain a public state bank is North Dakota. However, since the financial downturn of 2008, other states have looked into replicating the North Dakota model as a way to buck Wall Street while taking more control of state and local finances.

Here’s how the public bank in North Dakota works: All state revenues must be deposited with the state public bank by law.  The bank pays no bonuses, fees or commissions; does no advertising; and maintains no branches beyond the main office in Bismarck. The bank offers cheap credit lines to state and local government agencies. There are low-interest loans for designated project finance. The Bank of North Dakota underwrites municipal bonds, funds disaster relief and supports student loans. It partners with local commercial banks to increase lending across the state and pays competitive interest rates on state deposits. For the past ten years, it has been paying a dividend to the state.

An economic study on a public bank in Vermont suggests the plan would create 2,500 new jobs and increase the gross state product by more than $340 million, with no new appropriations or bonding to establish the bank.

And we wrap up with this; today is Pi Day. March 14, or expressed another way 3-14, which happen to be the first 3 digits of pi, that Greek letter that has come to be defined as the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter; in other words the ratio of the linear distance around the edge of a circular object to its measure of a straight line going through the center of a circle connecting two points on the circumference. So, if you want to know the circumference of a circle you could just multiply the diameter times 3.14 (pi). This also happens to be the birthday of Albert Einstein, which just makes both all the more intriguing.  A year from today, the date will be 3-14-15, which happens to be the first 5 digits of pi; it’s a once in a lifetime event.

Pi is, of course, an irrational number, which means it cannot be expressed as a ratio. It’s a decimal that’s neither finite (like 2.0 or 2.2) nor repeating (like 3.3333) nor periodic (like 9.1818). It just keeps going past 3.14159 for as long as you’d like to take it. Some people have done the calculation out to more than 2 trillion decimal places, with the help of computers. And so we consider pi to be infinite.

Another way to consider this is that there is no perfect circle. Or we might say that since pi is an infinite, non-repeating decimal every possible number combination exists somewhere in pi’s infinite sequence of numbers, and if you were to convert it to ASCII text, somewhere in that infinite string of digits is the name of every person you will ever love, or even meet, plus the date, time and manner of your death, and every question and every possible answer, and all the mysteries of the universe are contained in this infinite sequence of digits, and the only way we can wrap our minds around it is to think of it as a circle.

Celebrate safely.

Friday, December 27, 2013 - Fooled Again

Fooled Again

by Sinclair Noe

And now we present the curious case of Michael Steinberg. Not familiar? That's understandable; Michael Steinberg is a convicted felon, securities fraud and conspiracy, specifically insider trading. Steinberg is a close personal friend and former trader with Steven A. Cohen. You've likely heard that name. Cohen is the billionaire, stock picker who runs SAC Capital hedge fund; recently fined $1.2 billion by the SEC for insider trading and not maintaining adequate supervision of his employees. Cohen has not been charged as an individual.

Eight SAC employees have been criminally charged; six have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the government; one faces trial in January; Steinberg just lost his trial, and when the verdict was announced, the fellow fainted. The other guy who faces trial in January fainted when he was arrested. It's a bit funny, a bit pathetic. Steinberg faces a maximum of 85 years but that won't happen. Still, it looks like a potential case against Cohen could gain traction.

The US Attorney's Office in Manhattan has secured 77 insider trading convictions since 2009, without losing a single case. Jurors are capable of understanding insider trading. It's a fairly simple form of cheating. Jurors are also capable of understanding more complex forms of cheating. The markets are rigged by cheaters, in the form of insider trading and other, more complex scams. There are many honest people who earn god livings in the markets, but there are plenty of cheaters. The prosecutors aren't even going after the folks on the other side of the insider trades; someone supplied information on Weight Watchers, Gymboree, Dell, Nvidia, and Intermune (and others). At some point, those people expected something for their information. There is an old saying: if you can't identify the “mark” at a poker table, it's you.

No need to actually sit at the table with big time hedge fund types – you're still the “mark”. Just look at what's happening in Detroit. I knew it was just a matter of time until we started hearing more about how the big banks bet against Detroit; slowly but surely the information is oozing out as the vultures fight over the carrion.

Detroit, of course, has many problems, long standing problems. Back in 2005, Detroit's pensions were underfunded to the tune of $1.44 billion. Then-mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and other city officials set up nonprofit entities and corporations to issue the debt, and bought interest rate swaps as a hedge against rising interest rates (more precisely, they were sold interest rate swaps). Interest rates then dropped to the lowest levels in history; they lost the bet. Detroit owes the holders of the swaps the difference between the interest rates, adding to the pensions' underfunding by as much as $770 million over the next 22 years. Essentially, the politicians and banks gambled with the city's debt, and that bet may have exceeded legal limits on the debt; raising the question of whether the illegal bet is valid. There will probably be lawsuits.

And now that Detroit is in bankruptcy, the unelected emergency manager of Detroit, Kevin Orr, worked out a tentative deal to pay the UBS AG and Bank of America Merrill Lynch Capital Services more than $300 million in “secured debt”. Those banks are considered secured creditors because Detroit put up revenue from three casinos as collateral for the loan; which is now the only stable source of revenue for Detroit. The initial settlement would given the banks about 80 cents on the dollar of what they are owed, compared to 16 cents on the dollar that Orr has offered to retirees for their pensions. The judge told attorneys for Orr’s team to renegotiate the casino money deal because every deal the city has made relating to the swaps “has been made with a gun to its head”.

And so they went back to the table, and they have come up with a new deal, an incrementally better settlement that leaves much of the original structure intact. If the deal is approved by federal bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes, Detroit would get out of the swaps deal for about 56 cents on the dollar, get $120 million in cash to bolster city services and free up casino revenues, crucial to the city’s ongoing operations, that were used to secure a previous renegotiation of the swaps deal in 2009. Detroit might be smart to argue that the two major issues with the swaps in the bankruptcy proceeding: whether the swaps are secured debt, and whether the deal was legal in the first place. A favorable ruling for the city on either matter could result in a far better outcome than what has been agreed to.

Over the past five years Detroit has reduced its salary expenses by 30 percent. More than 2,350 public jobs have been cut, accelerating the city’s already notable pace of deterioration. Far from uncontrollable, the cost of health benefits for the city’s public workers and retirees has risen more slowly than the national rate of 4 percent a year. Since 2008, Detroit has reduced its spending by more than $400 million. In the same period, city revenues have fallen by nearly $260 million, with a steep decline after 2011. This decline, rather than its pension obligations, more than accounts for the city’s projected deficit this year of $198 million.

One consequence of these cuts is that public services like transportation, infrastructure maintenance and education are barely functioning. And yet there is one expense that has, so far, been spared: service fees on derivatives that were sold to the city by banks backed by UBS and Bank of America. In fact, these fees are the only significant increase in spending over the past five years. There have been many numbers tossed about in the Detroit bankruptcy, including the claim that the pensions are underfunded by $3.5 billion, but by some calculations, if you strip out the wheeling and dealing, the actual underfunded amount may be closer to $800 million. The public sector pays for the mistakes of the financial sector, and observers are led to believe that the basic promise of retirement is the city’s problem.

This isn't the first time the “swaps” problem has hurt municipalities, we also have examples from Montgomery County, Alabama and San Bernardino, California, and at the core is the question of whether pensions, secured by 20, 30, or 40 years of work are more or less secure than bets by banks. A new report by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College indicates that costly pension promises are not the major cause of municipalities weak financial conditions. The researchers compared 32 cities that have recently made headlines as they struggle with serious budget problems to a list of 149 other cities that are in relatively good financial shape. "When identifying the source of the problems, fiscal mismanagement leads the list," the study's authors found. "Economic problems, in large part a response to the financial crisis and ensuing recession, come in second." And, "In many cases pension were a contributing factor, but they weren't the driving factor in the fiscal challenges these cities are facing."

Our next story takes us to Switzerland, where 300 Swiss banks are working to meet Department of Justice year-end deadline to put a stop to tax evasion by American clients. Banks with reason to believe they violated tax laws can ask the DOJ to waive prosecution if the banks disclose how they helped Americans hide assets, and the banks will be required to hand over data on undeclared accounts, and pay penalties. If the banks don't apply for waivers and cooperate, then the banks and their customers could face criminal probes.

To gain the non-prosecution deals the banks must pay 20% of the value of accounts not disclosed by August 2008, 30% for accounts opened between August 2008 and February 2009, and 50% for accounts opened afterward. Fourteen Swiss banks are already part of criminal investigations. The crackdown on tax cheats really took off back in 2009, when the US charged UBS, the biggest Swiss bank, with aiding Americans in hiding some $20 billion in assets. UBS admitted it fostered tax evasion; they paid $780 million in fines; they avoided prosecution.

The banks are complaining, whining really, that the penalties are too high. Some Swiss banks may decide to opt-out of the non-prosecution deal, but that comes with a risk. Nearly 40,000 clients told the IRS all about their offshore accounts so that they might avoid prosecution. If it is later learned that some of those clients had accounts with banks that skipped the non-prosecution deal, it would seem like a slam dunk case against the bank. One area that still seems confusing is how to treat multinational corporations with headquarters in the US but offices in Switzerland.

You might think the decision to opt-in to the non-prosecution deal would be simple because the banks aren't really paying a penalty; the money comes from client accounts; it isn't really the banks' money; it is the clients' money. Of course this is not how banksters think. Once the money is in the banks' account, it becomes their money; it is capital they can leverage, and then use to trade.

Just a reminder, we're talking about tax evasion, the same crime that brought down Al Capone. Imagine some petty thief robs the local liquor store and steals a case of beer; he won't get a non-prosecution deal by just handing over a few beers to the cops. Meanwhile, two Swiss banks, Wegelin and Bank Frey, have already gone out of business; and UBS estimates several more will likely close in the coming year. Tax evasion is the business model of the Swiss banks; without it they really can't function. The practice has become institutionalized over time. There is a much older model for taxation: render unto Caesar.

We “celebrated” the Federal Reserve's 100^th anniversary on December 23. Of course, we could probably eliminate taxes if we could just come up with a better central bank. The government, if it and not the Fed was in control of its money supply, could spend as needed to meet its budget, drawing on credit issued by its own central bank (not the Fed); it could do this until price inflation indicated a weakened purchasing power of the currency. Then and only then, could the government need to levy taxes; and the need for taxes would not be to fund the budget but to counteract inflation by contracting the money supply.

In 1977, Congress gave the Fed a dual mandate, not only to maintain the stability of the currency but to promote full employment. The Fed also has another job, as a regulator of the banking system; and as a regulator, it is an abysmal failure; worse than an atheist priest.

There is a discipline in economics known as the “theory of repeated games” and the basic idea is that if you repeatedly cheat at a game, then it increases the likelihood that I will retaliate by trying to cheat you. Of course that is just a theoretical game. In the real world, I might just stop playing your game. When corruption and cheating permeates a society, everything starts to break down, fairness and trust turn to dust and the vacant, crumbling buildings of Detroit.

You have probably invested through Wall Street at some time or another, and yet we know that insiders rig the game; they cheat to fatten their own wallet at your expense. We know that the banks change the laws to make their wagers more “secure” than the pensions of retired cops and firefighters. Even the new deal for Detroit values banks bets at 56 cents on the dollar but pensioners would only get 20 cents on the dollar. Ah, but you might not have a public pension, so you are not concerned. Do you have a private retirement account? A 401k or IRA? The banksters have no more respect for private accounts than public accounts.

Political and economic inequality go hand in hand with a two-tiered justice system, and at the root of the rot are the banksters, cheating the system, lying on a grand scale, and doing it all with impunity. Maybe 2014 could be the year when we won't be fooled again. Best wishes for the New Year.

Friday, July 26, 2013 - Notes from the Favela

Notes from the Favela

by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 3 = 15,558
SPX + 1 = 1691
NAS + 7 = 3613

10 YR YLD - .01 = 2.56%
OIL - .82 = 104.67
GOLD - .30 = 1334.80
SILV - .26 = 20.09

Earlier in the week, the Dow and S&P hit record highs but the markets slipped; earlier today the Dow was down 150 points. For the week, the Dow rose 0.1 percent, the S&P 500 was flat (even as it hit a record) and the Nasdaq rose 0.7 percent.

It's Friday, and I have a bunch of notes and scraps that have been piling up, so we'll clean the desk, in no particular order.

The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's final reading on the overall index on consumer sentiment climbed to 85.1 from 84.1 in June, topping expectations for 84. It was the highest level since July 2007 and was also an improvement from July's initial reading of 83.9. Of course, if you paid a premium subscription, you could have had that information before the rest of the market.

Yesterday, I mentioned former Fed Chairman Paul Volker's remark that the only real financial innovation in the past 20 years was the ATM, which is actually about 30 years old now. And Volker wasn't quite right; the banks haven't done any real innovation but the hackers have. For nearly a decade, a band of cybercriminals rampaged through the servers of a global business who's who: Among the victims were 7-Eleven, Dow Jones, Nasdaq, JetBlue and JC Penney. Prosecutors say the hackers stole "conservatively" 160 million credit card numbers, and the dollar value of the crimes they helped facilitate is enormous; just four of the victims are out $300 million. The prosecutors say it's the largest data heist case ever and the suffering caused to identity theft victims was "immeasurable".

On Thursday, five of the gang's members were indicted. One is in custody in the US, a second is awaiting extradition in the Netherlands, and three more are still at large. Maybe if the banks paid more attention to providing a safe place to store money and a safe way to facilitate digital transactions, and if they spent less time trying to trade derivatives; maybe there could have been some financial innovation that actually was innovative.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency says the Swiss bank UBS has reached a settlement and will pay $415 million to the government-sponsored housing enterprises Fannie Mae and $470 million to Freddie Mac to resolve claims of misrepresenting the quality of collateral backing securities sold to Fannie and Freddie between 2004 and 2007.

The bank has already paid out $612 million to settle allegations of manipulating interest rates. UBS is now the third bank to settle with the FHFA after Citigroup and General Electric did so for undisclosed sums. UBS is just one of 18 banks the FHFA pursued in 2011 for allegedly lying about the quality of the collateral backing securities; essentially packaging subprime loans and selling them as a better quality.

 Home Affordable Modification Program or HAMP has been something of a disappointment nearly from its inception. After loudly touting the program’s ability to help 4 million borrowers, the administration was forced to concede it had barely helped a fraction of that number, or roughly 1.2 million mortgage modifications; and some advocates and administrators in the program actually came right out and declared the thing a failure. However, in recent months, we’ve been hearing a lot about how HAMP is finally getting going and hundreds of thousands of borrowers are getting the loan modifications that they need. What we haven’t heard until now, though, is just how many of them are re-defaulting on those loan modifications just months or years later; the number is now at 306,000.

I can see why many people think the HAMP program is a dud, but just to maintain perspective the Hope For Homeowners plan initiated by President Bush set aside $300 billion to refinance toxic loans and in 3 years time it managed to modify 71 loans; and the FHA-Secure plan managed to refinance 4,100 mortgages over a 3 year span. As far as the high number of re-defaults, the modification programs never dealt with the underlying problems, and for many, relief was just too little, too late.

One year ago today, Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank spoke at an investment conference and he said:  "the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough." The speech seemed to revive markets and stave off what looked like an impending collapse. A few weeks later, Draghi introduced OMT, or Outright Monetary Transactions, a conditional bond buying program. Spanish and Italian bond yields stabilized, even though the ECB hasn't actually used OMT to actually buy bonds. Germany’s constitutional court is due to rule later this year on OMT’s legality under German law. The ECB hasn't exactly managed to forge a solid plan, and so the financial improvement has not been accompanied by a meaningful change in what matters most: namely, the ability to generate economic growth, create jobs and arrest excessive income and wealth inequalities.

Earlier this week we marked the 3 year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act. Which is to say it was passed onto law, although less than half of the Act has been enacted. Mainly, it's been a battleground for bank lobbyists trying to tear out the entrails.

A federal grand jury indicted Steven A. Cohen's hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors on fraud charges. The hedge fund was charged with wire fraud as well as four counts of securities fraud, and the government is seeking to force SAC to surrender any fraud-related profits. According to the indictment from roughly 1999 to 2010, SAC obtained and traded on inside information to boost returns and fees and that the scheme involved a number of portfolio managers, research analysts and dozens of publicly traded companies.

The government has also filed civil money-laundering charges against the firm, which call for fines and penalties to be determined at a trial, the date of which hasn’t been set. Those civil charges pose the greatest threat to Cohen’s fortune because prosecutors allege that if the fund reinvested the proceeds of illegal insider trading into its capital pool, then the entire pool is tainted and subject to forfeiture, but it's expected that prosecutors won't try to go after the entire amount.

SAC oversaw $6 billion for outsiders at the start of this year, but have since withdrawn about $5 billion. The big question for those folks is whether they will face clawbacks. SAC is almost like Cohen's personal hedge fund; he has about $7.5 billion in SAC’s funds and employees account for $1.5 billion of assets. And the fund is conducting business as normal, or somewhat normal. Cohen wasn't named in the criminal indictment and faces no threat of prison time. In the corporate criminal world, avoiding indictment is the key battleground.

What does it take to be considered wealthy? A new survey finds the majority of people with a net worth of between one and five million dollars do not consider themselves wealthy; 28 percent of people worth between $1 million and $5 million call themselves wealthy. For people worth more than $5 million, just 60 percent of them say they’re rich. Of those surveyed, 50 percent said they’d consider themselves rich if they had no financial constraints on activities. So, it's not really a number.

Tell that to Eike Batista; he's the Brazilian oil tycoon who started 2012 as the eighth richest person in the world; net worth estimated at $34 billion; now that has dropped to $200 million. You might think that $200 million is a lot; if you had that money, you might think you were wealthy, but I'm not sure if that's how Batista feels. So, it's not really a number.

A few months ago, a Senate committee grilled Apple CEO Tim Cook over the company’s creative accounting strategies, accusing it of cheating the U.S. Treasury by stashing away billions of dollars that live in no tax jurisdiction at all. The company didn’t dispute the truth of the accusations, but blamed the United States for building a tax system that makes bringing overseas earnings back to the United States very expensive, and proposed simplified rules that would make it cheaper to do so.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has been working on the problem; in February they issued a report. The G20 held a meeting last weekend and they said they want a more globally uniform tax system, and they want the OECD to finish up a a concrete plan to crack down on tax cheats, and they want that plan within the next 2 years.

More problems for Boeing's troubled 787 Dreamliner today; one was grounded, an oven overheated in another and damage was found in wiring on two other planes. It's turning out to be like a flying cruise ship.

Halliburton Co has agreed to plead guilty to destroying evidence related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed 11 workers and left a horrific mess. The guilty plea is the third by a company over the spill, and requires the world's second-largest oilfield services company to pay a maximum $200,000 statutory fine; that's about how much Halliburton earns every 23 seconds, based on 2012 revenue numbers. Halliburton also made a separate, voluntary $55 million payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, plus 3 year probation.

Meanwhile, another Gulf of Mexico drilling rig caught fire this week off the coast of Louisiana. The blaze broke out Monday on a natural gas platform. The rig partially collapsed, but then sand and sediment covered up the spill and the fire is out or nearly out; and because it is natural gas it dissipated quickly in the ocean water. No one was injured.

Meanwhile, TEPCO, the Tokyo Electric Power Company finally admitted today, what had been suspected for quite some time; the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, the one damaged in the 2011 eathquake and tsunami, has been leaking contaminated water into the ocean. They don't know how much damage has been done by the leaks; they don't have a plan to clean it up and they don't seem to have a plan to stop it.

The northeast of Brazil is largely poor and rural. Years ago, there was a migration to the South, to the major cities of Rio de Janiero and Sao Paolo. The migrants were looking for jobs, industrial jobs. There were more people looking than getting. The migrants camped out. In Rio, they camped out in the hills surrounding the city. Eventually the encampments turned into shacks, the shacks turned into homes, but the entire process was haphazard. The homes lacked modern conveniences, and so the residents strung up illegal lines, they built illegal plumbing. The shacks turned into homes turned into small cities; slum cities known as favelas. The houses were built close together, the roads often not more than a tight alleyway, difficult for police to patrol. Poverty and unemployment were high. Gangs soon became a stronger authority figure than police; crime was pervasive; hope was not.

The favelas grew over time. In Rio, a city of more than 11 million people, it is estimated that more than 4 million live in favelas, or slums. The largest favela, Rocinha, is home to more than 500,000. Last year, the government sent in police with machine guns and armored vehicles to clean up the favelas in advance of the World Cup Soccer tournament next year, and the Olympic Games in 2016. You would probably not feel safe walking through a favela.

There is a favela in the north part of Rio, known as Varginha; it is very poor and violence is common. Built on swampland, Varginha is one of several favelas that have been "pacified," meaning the drug lords who once ran the place have been ejected or subdued by authorities. The government has allocated money for community centers, libraries and a train station. But residents say they have received more broken promises than actual help, and basic services such as sanitation remain woefully unavailable. They also complain that police are abusive and treat everyone like a criminal.

Pope Francis is visiting Brazil. He is not meeting with Brazil's president; the Pope instead headed to Varginha, telling residents of the notorious slum that their leaders must do a better job of helping them. The Pope said public authorities and "those in possession of greater resources" must "never tire of working for a more just world, marked by greater solidarity!" He told the crowds that "No one can remain insensitive to the inequalities that persist in the world!"

It was the most political message yet in the pope's pilgrimage to Brazil, and for many it echoed the enormous protests that erupted last month among Brazilians angry over government corruption, excessive state spending on upcoming international sports events, and lack of basic services such as education and healthcare.

And then after visiting the favela, he went to another favela, known as the City of God and he visited with recovering drug addicts, saying , “It is necessary to confront the problems underlying the use of these drugs, by promoting greater justice, educating young people in the values that build up life in society, accompanying those in difficulty and giving them hope for the future.”

And along the way, the Pope opened the windows of the Popemobile and even got out to walk with the crowds of people and kiss babies and give hugs and blessings to the crowds of people; he visited a little speck of a Catholic chapel; he just walked up to the modest home of a local family and was welcomed like a long lost brother. The security detail must have freaked out, but even in the most dangerous and violent slums of South America, there was not even the hint of a problem.

He stressed to the people of the favelas that he is on their side, saying: “The church offers its collaboration on all initiatives that lead to the development of all people. The church is with you. The pope is with you.”

Hours later, speaking under a rainy sky at the beach in Copacabana, the pope’s message to the more than one-million faithful was to shake up the church and make a “mess” in their dioceses by going out into the streets to spread the faith. He was less political and more centered on the importance of believing in Jesus. “He is a friend who does not defraud. ”

There has been revolution in the Middle East – the Arab Spring, and the n the Arab Spring-Part2. And throughout much of Europe there have been protests, especially in the periphery. It seems that we have forgotten what is important. How much real-world difference the papal visit might make remains to be seen. John Paul II visited the favelas of Rio in 1980, and obviously the underlying problems hardly disappeared in the intervening 33 years, but the Pope is the spiritual leader of more than one billion souls. And even if he can't change the reality on the ground, maybe he can make us consider how we keep score. He said, "The measure of the greatness of a society is found in the way it treats those most in need, those who have nothing apart from their poverty."

Thursday, February 07, 2013 -

Waiting for the Apocalypse

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 42 = 13,944
SPX – 2 = 1509
NAS – 3 = 3165
10 YR YLD -.02 = 1.95%
OIL - .74 = 95.88
GOLD – 6.30 = 1672.00
SILV - .39 = 31.56

Some day this war will end. Some day we will have an apocalypse, not in the terrifying version of the word but in the original Greek definition of “apokalypsis”, meaning an “uncovering”, a “lifting of the veil”, or “the disclosure of something hidden”. One day we will wake up and realize that money is printed out of thin air and it is not a store of wealth but a vessel of debt; the veil will be lifted and we will see the debt masters for what they truly are. Until then we get little surprises in the form of troves of emails revealing the reality that the financial markets are not bastions of cool rationalism, nor are they temples to integrity; and the lubricant of commerce may be nothing more than a tar pit.

We have been reading the emails from Barclays, UBS, and S&P describing how they would rig rates or rate deals for a cow if only they could get their cut. Sometimes the language is clipped in an instant messaging style of prose, sometimes it is profane in a way that would make Tony Soprano blush, and it seems to be flowing forth in a never-ending stream of culpability. Some day this war will end. But not today.

Today we learn of the emails from JPMorgan Chase and they show that executives at the firm knew there were problems; an outside analysis discovered serious flaws with thousands of home loans; the executives responded by slapping lipstick on a pig. Rather than disclosing the full extent of problems like fraudulent home appraisals and overextended borrowers, the bank adjusted the critical reviews. As a result, the mortgages, which JPMorgan bundled into complex securities, appeared healthier, making the deals more appealing to investors.

We learn this because of a lawsuit against JPMorgan filed in Manhattan by the French-Belgian bank Dexia, which went belly up after buying into the lipstick slathered securities which of course, ultimately imploded. Documents filed in federal court include internal emails and employee interviews. After suffering significant losses, Dexia sued JPMorgan and its affiliates in 2012, claiming it had been duped into buying $1.6 billion of troubled mortgage-backed securities. The latest documents could provide a window into a $200 billion case that looms over the entire industry. In that lawsuit, the Federal Housing Finance Agency has accused 17 banks of selling dubious mortgage securities to the two housing giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At least 20 of the securities are also highlighted in the Dexia case.

The Dexia lawsuit centers on mortgage-backed securities created by JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual during the housing boom. As profits soared, the Wall Street firms scrambled to pump out more investments, even as questions emerged about their quality. JPMorgan scooped up mortgages from lenders with troubled records. In an internal "due diligence scorecard," JPMorgan ranked large mortgage originators, assigning Washington Mutual and American Home Mortgage the lowest grade of "poor" for their documentation. The loans were quickly sold to investors. One executive at Bear Stearns told employees "we are a moving company not a storage company." As they raced to produce mortgage-backed securities, Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns also scaled back their quality controls.

Washington Mutual cut its due diligence staff by 25 percent to prop up profit. A November 2007 email from a WaMu executive described the cutbacks as steps that "tore the heart out" of quality controls. The email said: executives who pushed back endured "harassment" when they tried to "keep our discipline and controls in place.” Even when flaws were flagged, JPMorgan and the other firms sometimes overlooked the warnings.

JPMorgan hired third-party firms to examine home loans before they were packed into investments. Combing through the mortgages, the firms searched for problems like borrowers who had vastly overstated their incomes or appraisals that inflated property values. An analysis for JPMorgan in September 2006 found that "nearly half of the sample pool" - or 214 loans - were "defective," meaning they did not meet the underwriting standards. The borrowers’ incomes, the firms found, were dangerously low relative to the size of their mortgages. Another troubling report in 2006 discovered that thousands of borrowers had already fallen behind on their payments.

And what did JPMorgan do when confronted with the defects? They ignored them or they whitewashed the findings or they just lied about them. Certain JPMorgan employees, including the bankers who assembled the mortgages and the due diligence managers, had the power to ignore or veto bad reviews. In other words, they knew the mortgage backed securities they were bundling and selling were full of garbage loans and they just didn't give a damn about it as long as they could sell it. Of course we all know that employees and analysts and due diligence directors say the darnedest things in emails, but if the emails reveal what the investigators think they reveal; then JP Morgan actually defrauded its clients, and the bank and its executives should obviously pay a big price for that.

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan has tried to differentiate his bank from the rest of Wall Street. He recently lashed out at what he called the “big dumb banks” that “virtually brought the country down to its knees.”

If this sounds like yesterday's news or the news from 5 years ago; well, it is but it is also tomorrow's news. Some four years after the 2008 financial crisis, public trust in banks is as low as ever. Sophisticated investors describe big banks as “black boxes” that may still be concealing enormous risks, the sort that could again take down the economy. In the fall of 2008, when the meltdown hit, all the banks stopped, well they stopped pretty much everything, they stopped lending to each other; they stopped trading with other banks, and the reason they stopped was because after Lehman Brothers was allowed to collapse, no one understood the banks' risks. There was no way to look at a bank's disclosures and determine whether that bank might implode.

Was any given bank the next IndyMac, was it the next Northern Rock, the next Dexia? Did JPMorgan have toxic assets on their books or had they already dumped their trash on Dexia? JPMorgan was supposed to be one of the safest and best-managed corporations in America. Jamie Dimon, the firm’s charismatic CEO, can charm the cufflinks off journalist in New York or high rollers in Davos, and he had kept his institution upright throughout the financial crisis, and by early 2012, it appeared as stable and healthy as ever. And then the London Whale washed up on the banks of the River Thames.

The London Whale ran a little bit of a trading desk, and he had gambled away $6 billion, maybe more; investigators are still investigating; still the losses are not enough to destroy the House of Morgan, even though it wiped out one-third of the market capitalization. After all, JPMorgan is considered to have the best risk management operations in the industry.

And what this really tells us is that they haven't learned how to manage the risks; in part because the culture is corrupted. JPMorgan started reporting small losses, then they had to admit that its reported numbers were false. Federal prosecutors are now investigating whether traders lied about the value of the London Whale's trading positions as they were deteriorating. JPMorgan shareholders have filed numerous lawsuits alleging that the bank misled them in its financial statements; the bank itself is suing one of its former traders over the losses. Jamie Dimon didn’t understand or couldn’t adequately manage his risk, or maybe he knew and just slapped some lipstick on the pig. Investors are now left to doubt whether the bank is as stable as it seemed and whether any of its other disclosures are inaccurate.

And of course, it's not just JPMorgan; that is just the biggest player. Toss in Libor rate rigging from Barclays, UBS, and RBS. Toss in money laundering from HSBC and Standard Chartered, and don't forget robo-signing from a host of banks more concerned with being moving companies than storage companies; more concerned with their own profits than with pesky legal details like due process. And only after the fact do we see the emails that provide the colorful stories of how the banks misled clients, sold them garbage and then bet against them.

So, the question is: do you trust the banks? Chances are you answered “no”. Depending upon the survey, about 4 out of 5 people say they have no trust in our financial system; and I doubt the fifth person holds the banks in high regard. And four-and-a-half years after the meltdown, the Too Big To Fail banks are bigger than before, and because they've received get out of jail free cards they operate with impunity and disregard for the rule of law or requirements for transparency. The Geithner Policy insured the banks did not have to change their wicked ways; they were too big and too systemically important to be bothered.

Do you know what the banks have on their books? Are the assets vintage or toxic? You don't know because the banks are a black box of disclosure. And guess what? Jamie Dimon doesn't know how much risk JPMorgan is taking. And if he doesn't know how much risk his own bank has, then there is no way he knows about the garbage the other banks hold on their books. And here is the big problem. All it takes is a bump in the road and the financial institutions will freeze up once again.

Some day, the veil will be lifted. Some day the we will learn the secrets. Some day the war will be over.

Not today.

Last summer, Boeing's top management axed the engineer CEO who had been turning around BCA, [Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and making it better again. They replaced him with a non-engineer CEO. Then, management got into a confrontation with the engineer's union (which may also partly be the union's fault, but it's not a battle management can afford right now). Then the top management indefinitely postponed, in other words they killed off, the very promising 777X , new long-range, highly efficient model. These moves were on top of a 787 development model that de-emphasized in-house engineering and relied on industry partners for much of the development work. Since the 787 appeared to be out of the woods, there wasn't much need for R&D and engineers and new-fangled planes.

Then a 787 Dreamliner caught fire, and then another; batteries exploded and it was a bit of a problem. Back in Seattle, engineers, represented by a disgruntled union and forced to report to multiple layers of non-engineer management, are working overtime on the problem, but after several weeks, nobody appears to be close to a solution. And once they do find a solution, they will have to go through a process of re-certification. That process might take 6 months, maybe longer.

That is the background for Boeing's fourth quarter earnings report this month. The 787 problem wasn't discussed, except that the investigation was continuing and couldn't be discussed and 787 production was continuing full speed ahead, despite uncertainties about what needed to be done for the battery system, or any other aspects of the plane's design. If these planes being built need major retrofitwork in the future, well, that's for the engineers to worry about.  Apparently, the executives in Chicago didn't get the memo that the entire fleet of 787's has been grounded.

American Airlines' parent AMR Corp. and US Airways Group are within a week or two of finalizing a merger that would create the world's largest airline by traffic. The new company would be worth more than $10 billion, and the deal would be an all-stock transaction that would take place as part of the reorganization that would take American Airlines out of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The deal under discussion would give American Airlines creditors about 72% of the new entity and US Airways shareholders about 28%. There would be huge expenses with integrating the two companies and the merger process might cause some disruptions to customer service; and after a merger it's unclear if they will have a significant competitive advantage over the other big competitors, now whittled down to just three, but it would keep the new American-slash-US Air in the arena. And it would likely mean higher airfares for the rest of us.

For most of 2012, small-caps and large stocks slogged through the market ups and downs like white on rice. But since the market began to move off its November bottom, the Russell 2000 small-cap index has outpaced the Dow Jones Industrial Average by a wide margin. The Russell is up an impressive 18% since its November lows, while the Dow has risen about 11.5% during the same timeframe. Risk on.

Last month, 11 European countries, including France and Germany, moved forward on introducing a minuscule tax on trades in stocks, bonds and derivatives. The tax goes by many names. It's often called a Tobin tax, after the economist James Tobin. In Europe it goes by the more pedestrian financial transaction tax. In Britain, it goes by the wonderful Robin Hood tax.

A transaction tax could raise a huge amount of money here in the US and cause less pain than many alternatives. It could offset the need for cuts to the social safety net or tax increases that damage consumer demand. How huge a sum? An estimate from the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which scores tax plans estimates the tax could raise: $352 billion over 10 years.

The money would come from a tiny levy. A bill that might be introduced next month calls for a three-basis-point charge on most trades. A basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point. So it amounts to 3 cents on every $100 traded. Critics claim the tax will harm our capital markets and won't raise that much money. They argue that such a tax cannot be enforced; that it will depress trading, leading to lower asset prices; and that it will ultimately be passed on to retail investors. If some kind of increase in taxes is inevitable, one that takes aim at high-frequency traders doesn't seem so bad.

Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - Cutting to Spite Ourselves

Cutting to Spite Ourselves

by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 99 = 13,979
SPX + 15 = 1511
NAS + 40 = 3171
10 YR YLD +.04 = 2.02%
OIL + .47 = 96.64
GOLD – 1.40 = 1674.00
SILV +.06 = 31.92

The Congressional Budget Office released revised budget projections that show the federal deficit will drop to $845 billion this year, the first time during Obama's presidency that the red ink would fall below $1 trillion. The budget office also said the economy will grow slowly in 2013. The reason for the slowdown is a tax increase in January and spending cuts coming in the next couple of months.

A few minutes after the CBO report, President Obama spoke to the press and said those spending cuts would damage the economy and must be avoided. He asked Congress for a short-term deficit reduction package that will delay deeper cuts past the automatic start date of March 1, also known as the sequester.

The automatic cuts are part of a 10-year, $1 trillion deficit reduction plan that was supposed to spur Congress and the administration to act on long-term fiscal policies that would stabilize the nation's debt. Though Congress and the White House have agreed on about $2.6 trillion in cuts and higher taxes since the beginning of 2011, they have been unable to close the deal on their ultimate goal of reducing deficits by about $4 trillion over a decade.

If the automatic cuts are allowed to kick in, they would reduce Pentagon spending by 7.9 percent and domestic programs by 5.3 percent. Food stamps and Medicaid would be exempt, but Medicare could take up to a 2 percent reduction, under the plan.

White House aides say the president's plan for long-term deficit reduction would increase tax revenue by about $600 billion to $700 billion over 10 years as well as reduce mandatory health care spending, primarily in Medicare, by about $400 billion over the next decade. It would also change an inflation formula that would reduce cost-of-living adjustments for beneficiaries of government programs, including Social Security. Republicans have called for a more comprehensive overhaul of government entitlement programs.

For now, the President is asking for a short-term deficit reduction package of spending cuts and tax revenue that will delay the sequester, and give Congress time to chip away at the problem.

Part of what we should have learned is that austerity is not the answer. Europe has shown that. When economists talk about the role of government in economic recovery, they often focus on the question of whether or not we need more economic stimulus. Government participation in the economy does not just stimulate private sector activity.  Government is itself a large, diverse and important sphere of economic enterprise.  Our federal, state and local governments produce and deliver important goods and service, things that people want and need, and that they have asked their representatives to create and maintain.   And governments employ millions of people in income-earning positions to carry out all of this production.  Ordinarily, we would expect that as a society grows, government will grow commensurately along with everything else.  As our population grows and private enterprises proliferate, we need more schools and teachers, more courthouses and police stations, more public parks, more inspectors and regulators, more paved roads and street lights, and more government clerical workers.  So while it is true that government spending also stimulates additional economic activity in the private sector – just as any economic enterprise stimulates economic activity in the other enterprises it touches and affects – it is also true that the public enterprises governments oversee and the tasks governments perform are all by themselves an important component of overall economic activity.

The part of government spending that is devoted to purchases made in the production of goods and services is called “consumption and gross investment” , or CGI, and it amounts to about 15% to 20% of GDP.  Government consumption and gross investment (CGI) can be contrasted with other forms of government spending that do not contribute to GDP, such as transfer payments to the public under social insurance programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance programs.

CGI started to dry up after the stimulus package started to wear off in 2011, and public enterprise also started to decline. Paul Krugman asked: “How big a deal is this? Government consumption and investment is about $3 trillion; if it had grown as fast this time as it did in the Bush years, it would be 12 percent, or $360 billion, higher. Given a multiplier of more than one, which is what the IMF among others now thinks reasonable under current conditions, that ends up meaning GDP something like $450 billion higher, which is 3 percent — and an unemployment rate 1.5 points lower. So fiscal austerity is the difference between where we are now and an unemployment rate not much above 6 percent.”

For the past couple of years we've heard bipartisan talk about grand bargains, fiscal cliffs, sequestration, and debt ceilings, with different strategies granted, but with a common theme to shrink government.

 Obama actually told us government must shrink because we are “out of money”.  But notice how absurd it would be if the leaders of private sector industry were to say that the private sector economy has to shrink because it is out of money.  Everybody recognizes that if our economy is to grow and progress, private enterprise needs to spend and invest, and that the means of financing are created along with the initiatives that are financed.   In the case of government, the financial constraint is even less relevant, I mean they print the currency, so there are no real constraints due to a lack of money.

Yesterday I told you to look for a lawsuit against S&P. As expected, the government is seeking more than $5 billion in a civil lawsuit against Standard & Poor's and parent company McGraw-Hill over mortgage-bond ratings, marking the first federal enforcement action against a credit rating agency over alleged illegal behavior tied to the recent financial crisis. S&P reportedly had a chance to settle for about $1 billion, but they felt the price was too high. Attorney General Eric Holder said at a news conference that S&P misled investors, causing them to lose billions, and that its ratings were affected by "significant conflicts of interests." He said that while analysts raised red flags as early as 2003, S&P executives ignored questions about ratings.

In the filing Monday, the government said: "Considerations regarding fees, market share, profits, and relationships with issuers improperly influenced S&P's rating criteria and models." In other words, they sold their ratings to the highest bidder and didn't give a damn about honesty. So, the question is why did it take so long to bring civil charges against the ratings agency?

Well, the lawyer defending S&P says the government intensified its investigation after S&P downgraded the government's credit rating in 2011, following the debt ceiling dysfunction. I'll give the lawyer credit for misdirection, if nothing else. S&P will likely use the same defense the industry has been using for years to explain the seemingly misguided ratings -- their right to free speech. S&P and other credit rating agencies have claimed that their ratings were merely free speech and are therefore protected under the First Amendment. 

There is a paper trail of damaging emails. You've heard about this before. And when those emails are read aloud in court, the best hope will be to make jurors think that maybe it's just a government vendetta. But listen to some of the emails:

In an April 2007 email, an analyst quoted in the lawsuit told an investment banking client that the priorities inside S&P were not centered on providing accurate ratings, but rather were focused on not “p*ssing off too many clients and jumping the gun ahead of [competitors] Fitch and Moody’s.”

The banker emailed back: “I mean come on we pay you to rate our deals, and the better the rating the more money we make?!?! What’s up with that? How are you possibly supposed to be impartial????”

Another S&P analyst wrote: "We rate every deal … it could be structured by cows and we would rate it.”

The email complaints about the integrity of the ratings were so numerous that S&P management directed analysts to stop sending complaints via email. But the emails continued. They wrote about allowing bankers to have greater input into the ratings process; let the bankers help make the grades for the products they were selling; and all designed to increase revenue for S&P. One email that seems particularly damaging came from a director in charge of rating CDOs in late 2006. He wrote: “this market is a wildly spinning top which is going to end badly.”

The paper trail is long and extremely damaging. So, what does it take to come up with criminal charges against a large financial institution? Seriously, what does it take to get a criminal charge started?

Today, Barclays, the British bank, announced it is provisioning another $1.3 billion in its Q4 results to settle claims it mis-sold financial products, bringing total provisions to about $3.5 billion. And UBS, the Swiss banking giant, announced a a $2.1 billion dollar fourth quarter loss, with $1.5 billion of that coming from fines for manipulating Libor interest rates. The Libor rate affects the prices of hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial products; everything from credit cards to mortgages to municipal bonds. Basically, the price of everything in the world the price is somehow connected to Libor. And these guys were monkeying around with this for individual profit. But nothing illegal happened.

And finally, Dell Computer will be taken private by founder Michael Dell and Silver Lake Partners in a $24.4 billion dollar deal. It works out to about $13.60 per share, roughly one-quarter Dell's all-time high 12 years ago. Still, it's the biggest buy out in years.