SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/12/2009 5:56:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361457
 
Some of the shorts were taking it in the shorts today <G>....This market remains very oversold.

-s2@JustMyView.com



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/12/2009 6:09:46 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361457
 
Bank of America Expects to Post Full-Year 2009 Profit (Update2)

By Christopher Condon and Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam

March 12 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. bank, expects to make money for the full year after posting a profit for January and February, Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis said.

“We have been profitable for the first two months of the year,” Lewis told reporters after a speech to the Boston College Chief Executives’ Club in Boston today. “We expect to be profitable” in 2009. In his speech, Lewis said the bank may earn $50 billion this year, measured before taxes and provisions, and the company won’t need more federal aid.

Lewis becomes the third CEO at the nation’s biggest banks to report his company was profitable in the early part of this year, joining JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. He has promised the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank will get through the credit crunch without more help from U.S. taxpayers.

The bank’s stock rose for a fourth straight day in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, advancing 92 cents, or 19 percent, to $5.85 at 4:02 p.m. Lewis said in today’s speech he expects revenue to top $100 billion this year.

Bank of America and its units accepted capital and guarantees from the federal rescue program valued at $163 billion and the bank posted a $1.79 billion fourth-quarter loss. Bank of America’s aid package was expanded in January after losses from newly acquired Merrill Lynch & Co. spiraled beyond what Lewis expected.

Returning Capital

Lewis said in his remarks the bank is in a “hurry” to return the U.S. capital and escape the government-imposed restrictions, with the timing tied to an overall economic recovery. The first sign of such a rebound will come from home prices, he said.

“At some point we’ll see housing prices stabilize and that would reignite the market,” he said. Lewis said he would pay particular attention to California, which he called “the poster child of the housing decline.”

Lewis said he expected lawmakers would provide companies with relief from accounting rules that require companies to value securities every quarter to reflect market prices.

“It seems to be common sense,” he said. “I think there is a solution that meets the accounting stance and shareholders’ stance.”

No to Nationalization

While Lewis in his speech praised the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, for preventing a financial system “meltdown” and boosting lending, he opposed calls from some analysts and lawmakers for a formal government takeover of the largest global banks.

“The announcement of nationalization would immediately undermine confidence in the financial system even further and send shudders through the investment community,” he said. “By nationalization, I mean a full-scale takeover of an institution by the government in which common shareholders, and possibly debt holders as well, would be wiped out. This, in my view, would be a nightmare.”

Regulators are subjecting Bank of America and 18 more of the biggest U.S. banks to stress tests to determine whether they can survive average unemployment of 8.9 percent in 2009 and 10.3 percent next year, along with a further decline in U.S. housing prices. The testing is to be completed by late April, according to the Treasury Department.

Covering Losses

Bank of America is cutting more than $7 billion in annual expenses after its acquisitions of Countrywide Financial Corp., formerly the largest U.S. home lender, and Merrill, the world’s largest securities brokerage.

Bank of America’s expected pretax earnings of $49.3 billion in 2009 exceed the $38.3 billion in total losses likely to be recognized over the next few years, Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller analyst Andrew Marquardt wrote in a report last month. The bank has already recognized $31.7 billion in losses by marking down the value of loans and securities, he said.

“Based on our estimates, it would take less than a year to cover estimated remaining loss content,” Marquardt wrote in the report. He rates the bank at “outperform.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Christopher Condon in Boston at ccondon4@bloomberg.netSree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam in Boston at Or sbhaktavatsa@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 12, 2009 16:30 EDT



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/12/2009 7:00:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361457
 
Mark-to-Market: A Rule That Begs to Be Broken

seekingalpha.com



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/12/2009 11:50:25 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361457
 
China ‘Worried’ Over Safety of U.S. Debt, Wen Says (Update1)

By Eugene Tang and Tian Ying

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- China, the U.S. government’s largest creditor, is “worried” about its holdings of Treasuries and wants assurances that the investment is safe, Premier Wen Jiabao said.

“We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States,” Wen said today at a press conference in Beijing that marked the closure of the annual National People’s Congress meeting. “Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am a little bit worried. I request the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.”

China should seek to “fend off risks” as it diversifies its $1.95 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves and will safeguard its own interests, according to Wen. He requested that Chinese investors held $696 billion of U.S. Treasuries as of Dec. 31, an increase of 46 percent from the prior year.

Merrill Lynch & Co.’s U.S. Treasury Master index shows the securities declined 0.5 percent last month, after falling 3.1 percent in January, the worst since April 2004, as President Barack Obama sells record amounts of debt to fund his $787 billion bailout. The dollar has dropped 17 percent against the yuan since China ended a fixed exchange rate in July 2005.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged China, while visiting officials on Feb. 22, to continue buying U.S. debt, which she called a “safe investment.” That will depend on “China’s own needs and follow the principle of value preservation and safety,” the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, China’s currency regulator, said last month.

Diversification Plans

Delegates of China’s legislative advisory body suggested that the biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt diversify away from Treasuries into more risky assets at the annual meeting that started on March 3.

Jesse Wang, executive vice president of China Investment Corp., said on March 4 that his $200 billion sovereign wealth fund may invest in “undervalued” commodity assets. Zhang Guobao, head of the National Energy Administration, said China should invest more in commodities instead of hoarding the U.S. dollar, the official Xinhua News Agency reported on March 7.

China will maintain its policy of seeking a stable yuan, even as gains against the euro and Asian currencies hurt the nation’s exporters, Premier Wen said. People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan pledged last week to maintain yuan stability as investors pull money out of emerging-market assets because of slowing global economic growth.

“Our goal is to maintain a basically stable yuan at a balanced and reasonable level,” Wen said. “At the end of the day, it is our own decision and any other countries can’t press us to depreciate or appreciate our currency.”

While the yuan has weakened 0.2 percent against the dollar this year, there has been a “drastic depreciation” in the euro and Asian currencies that has put a lot of pressure on Chinese exporters, Wen said.

The Obama administration has backed away from January comments by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that the Chinese government manages the currency to gain a competitive advantage. Vice President Joe Biden said on Jan. 29 the U.S. hasn’t decided if it will formally label China as a country that manipulates its currency.

To contact the reporter on this story: Eugene Tang in Beijing at eugenetang@bloomberg.netJudy Chen in Shanghai at xchen45@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 12, 2009 23:04 EDT



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/13/2009 1:03:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361457
 
AIG Asked Buffett for Help Twice Before Its September Collapse

By Betty Liu and Erik Holm

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Warren Buffett said he was offered two chances to help American International Group Inc. in the final days before the U.S. government intervened to prevent the insurer’s collapse last September.

Buffett fielded a phone call from AIG’s then-Chief Executive Officer Robert Willumstad on a Friday night in September, and opted not to bid on part of the insurer’s U.S. property-casualty operation, the Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman said in a Bloomberg Television interview. That Sunday, a second offer to participate in a transaction fell apart when a cash injection by a private group didn’t materialize, he said.

“It wasn’t very tough,” to resist an investment, Buffett said. “They needed more than we could supply by far. I didn’t know the extent of it, but I knew that.”

Buffett’s narrative sheds light on AIG’s efforts to come up with a private solution to its capital shortage the same weekend that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was imploding. The U.S. later agreed to take a 79.9 percent stake in AIG in exchange for an $85 billion loan after allowing Lehman to collapse. As part of the deal, Willumstad was replaced by current CEO Edward Liddy.

“That was a weekend like the world hasn’t seen,” Buffett said in the interview at Berkshire’s headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. Portions of the interview are being broadcast on Bloomberg Television today.

Buffett said he spent “an hour or two” on the Friday night examining documents faxed over by New York-based AIG before deciding not to commit Berkshire funds to buy some of the insurer’s U.S. operations.

‘Taking Out a Girl’

“It’s like taking out a girl -- sometimes you know it isn’t going to happen,” Buffett said “The time pressures, the degree of uncertainty, the depth of the possible hole, the need to get it through a regulatory body,” he said. “It wasn’t going to happen.”

The second proposed deal involved “an insurance transaction that might have occurred in conjunction with a big injection of funds by some group -- I don’t even know who was necessarily in it -- on Sunday night,” Buffett said. “That never went anyplace.”

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were working with AIG in the days before the government rescue on a possible loan package of $70 billion to $75 billion, two people with knowledge of the discussions said at the time.

Regulators have since revised AIG’s bailout three times to ease the original loan terms and increase the bailout package to about $160 billion. AIG last week posted a $61.7 billion fourth- quarter loss, the worst in U.S. corporate history.

“It’s been an extraordinary period,” Buffett said. “It has exceeded my expectations in the wrong direction.”

(Portions of the interview with Buffett will be broadcast today on Bloomberg Television and at BTV on the Bloomberg terminal.)

To contact the reporters on this story: Betty Liu in New York at bliu17@bloomberg.net; Erik Holm in New York at eholm2@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 13, 2009 00:00 EDT



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/13/2009 10:22:39 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361457
 
Stiglitz Enabled Obama With Nobel Ideas to Scorn Them (Update1)

By Matthew Benjamin

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Joseph Stiglitz’s 2003 book “The Roaring Nineties” is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s blueprint to reshape the U.S. economy. Yet the Nobel Prize- winning economist says “there’s no natural position for somebody like me” in the new administration.

A plan Obama was considering to buy illiquid assets on banks’ balance sheets amounted to swapping taxpayers’ “cash for trash,” Stiglitz, 66, said in January interviews at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “I’m hopefully shaping some of the debate and some of the policies and framing the discussion.”

Like fellow Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who writes a column for the New York Times, Stiglitz has his own forum, contributing regularly to Vanity Fair magazine. His articles, with titles including “Capitalist Fools,” are spread through the Internet via sites such as DemocraticUnderground.com and DailyKos.com.

Stiglitz’s work is cited in economic papers by more people than that of any of his peers, according to a February ranking by Research Papers in Economics, an international database. Obama adviser Lawrence Summers is 11th on the list and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke 34th.

While Stiglitz’s long-held views on the drawbacks of unfettered markets are proving prophetic in the global recession, his outspokenness excludes him from government, said David Ellerman, who worked with the economist at the World Bank in the 1990s.

Self-Control

“If you’re going to function well in a big bureaucracy, you’ve got to have a sort of self-control that Joe doesn’t have,” said Ellerman, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Riverside.

“The Roaring Nineties” (W.W. Norton & Company, 432 pages, $15.95) argued that the deregulation and market excesses of the 1990s laid the seeds of later crises. It inspired a speech by Obama a year ago, said a top aide from the Obama campaign, who spoke on the condition he wouldn’t be identified. The address laid out the president’s plan to reinstate and modernize regulation of Wall Street to avoid further crises.

Stiglitz also mentored several members of Obama’s economic team, including budget director Peter Orszag, 40, and Jason Furman, 38, deputy director of the National Economic Council.

Still, Stiglitz is critical of how the president plans to rescue the economy and questions his appointment of Summers as his top economic adviser.

It’s “a real concern” that people such as Summers, “who have been openly on the side of deregulation,” are back in positions of power, said Stiglitz. The presidential adviser helped secure passage of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed longstanding banking regulations.

Stiglitz Clashes

“Larry Summers has made clear that the events of the last several years make sweeping reform of our financial regulatory system absolutely necessary,” said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

“He has been a top adviser to the president on this issue as he has repeatedly called for swift government action,” she said.

When Stiglitz last worked in Washington, as chief economist at the World Bank, he clashed with Summers at Treasury and with the lender’s president, James Wolfensohn, by criticizing International Monetary Fund policies. Stiglitz said the IMF was hurting poor countries by demanding they cut budgets, raise interest rates and open capital markets.

When Stiglitz resigned from the bank in early 2000, his staff drew up a mock list of reasons for his departure. At the top: “Had Just Seen One Too Many Hot Summers in Washington.” Another entry: “To Find a Vaccine for Foot-in-Mouth Disease.”

“Remaining silent when people are pursuing wrong ideas would have been a form of complicity,” the New York Times quoted Stiglitz as saying of his departure.

“Rather than muzzle myself, or be muzzled, I decided to leave,” he said, according to the Times.

Speaking Up

Stiglitz receives more than 50 requests from the media each week for comments, travels constantly, and delivers a speech almost every day, said his wife, Anya Schiffrin.

He won the Nobel in 2001 for showing that markets are inefficient when all parties in a transaction don’t have equal access to critical information, which is most of the time.

“Adam Smith’s invisible hand -- the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if guided by unseen forces -- is invisible, at least in part, because it is not there,” Stiglitz wrote in a 2002 article in The Guardian newspaper.

The idea implies that there’s an important role for government to play in the economy, he wrote.

“This is Joe’s moment in time,” said Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden.

Bernstein, who calls himself a Stiglitz “disciple,” said the economist “understood the tendency for markets to fail in ways that nobody else did. He was way ahead of the rest of us.”

Teacher’s Son

The son of a schoolteacher and an insurance salesman, Stiglitz grew up in Gary, Indiana, when the local steel industry was beginning to decline. He was student-government president and debate-team member in high school and went on to Amherst College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

At the World Bank, Stiglitz repeatedly criticized IMF handling of the financial crisis that swept Asia in the late 1990s. He claimed austerity measures the fund demanded from nations looking for help risked pushing them into severe recessions.

Stiglitz also questioned the IMF’s motives. “I worry a little bit about organizations whose function is to deal with crises,” he said in September 1999. “What are their incentives?”

Soon after leaving the bank, Stiglitz wrote in The New Republic magazine that fund staffers were “third-rank students from first-rate universities.”

‘Harsh’ Critic

“There was probably nothing worse he could have said about them,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research in Washington.

“When he wrote about the IMF, he didn’t make any efforts to be polite,” Baker said, “he was harsh.”

Stiglitz’s bestselling 2002 book “Globalization and Its Discontents,” (W.W. Norton & Company, 304 pages, $16.95) denounced World Bank and IMF policies, along with the way trade liberalization was being pursued by Washington officials.

His writings and criticism of the IMF prompted an open letter from Kenneth Rogoff, then research director at the fund.

“Joe, as an academic, you are a towering genius,” Rogoff wrote. “As a policymaker, however, you were just a bit less impressive.”

Stiglitz, who’s been a professor at Columbia University since 2001 and chaired the Brooks World Poverty Institute at the University of Manchester in the U.K. since 2005, shows no signs of curbing his tongue. Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science.

Failing ‘Giveaway’

The Treasury’s program to inject capital into financial institutions in return for warrants was “not only a giveaway, but a giveaway that was designed not to work,” he said.

The financial industry, which has run up more than $1.2 trillion in losses and writedowns since mid-2007 and whose cooperation Obama needs to resolve the economic crisis, is “ethically challenged,” he said.

Stiglitz continues to win praise from his peers, however.

“Joe is just one of the most immensely popular economists,” said George Akerlof, 68, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who shared the 2001 Nobel Prize with Stiglitz and economist Michael Spence, 65, an emeritus professor at Stanford University. “Stiglitz is tremendously generous with his ideas,” said Akerlof.

‘Talk Freely’

Stiglitz said he prefers the liberty of his current jobs to the shackles of politics.

“In my position in life, it’s much better to be in academia, to be able to talk freely,” he said.

Even academia isn’t prepared to accept some Stiglitz habits. His first academic job offer, an assistant professorship at MIT in 1966, came with the proviso that he remember to wear shoes and not spend nights in his office, he said.

It was one more position on which the economist refused to back down.

“It saved on commuting time,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Benjamin in Washington at Mbenjamin2@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 13, 2009 07:46 EDT



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/13/2009 12:04:01 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361457
 
Lehman's Failure Mattered (Redux)

newyorker.com



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/16/2009 6:40:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361457
 
The Goldman infallibility myth

bbc.co.uk

By Robert Peston 16 Mar 09, 09:35 AM

AIG - the monstrously reckless US insurance and financial group - last night published a list of the "counterparties" that benefited from the $85bn emergency loan it received in September from the US central bank, the Federal Reserve.

This disclosure of which banks were on the other end of its complicated financial deals came after weeks of pressure from Congress. And it's a remarkable event: such information is typically cloaked in secrecy.

What it shows is why the US authorities felt they had to rescue AIG, while almost simultaneously (and some would say mistakenly) allowing Lehman to collapse.

If AIG had collapsed into bankruptcy, the losses for some of the world's biggest and most important banks would have been life-threatening for them and arguably lethal for the financial system as a whole.

Now, the name that leaps out for me as a leading beneficiary of the AIG bailout is Goldman Sachs.

Between 16 September and 31 December last year, Goldman received $2.6bn in collateral from AIG Financial Products - which in turn had been provided by the Federal Reserve - on credit default swaps (these are a kind of insurance against borrowers defaulting on loans, which are frequently used as a way of speculating on the health of businesses or other creditors).

There were subsequent payments to Goldman of $5.6bn, to purchase from it the securities underlying certain credit default swap contracts.

And there was a transfer to Goldman of $4.8bn to fulfil commitments under securities lending agreements.

So the gross sum received by Goldman from the US Federal Reserve, via AIG, was $13bn.

What that shows is Goldman would have been in the deepest, darkest doo-doo, if AIG hadn't been put on life support.

Which - some would say - rather explodes Goldman's fearsome reputation for controlling risk better than its rivals.

Goldman allowed itself to become deeply dependent on the health and fortunes of a business, AIG, which we now see to have been an unstable house of cards of a scale that boggles all comprehension

As it turned out, AIG was far too big to be allowed to fail by the US authorities. But few would argue that was a sound reason for Goldman - or anyone else - doing business with AIG.

If Goldman's senior executives don't wake up every morning and whisper "there but the grace of...", well they wouldn't be quite human if they didn't.

That said, there are other fascinating conclusions to be drawn from the list of banks which received succour from the Fed, as intermediated by battered AIG.

The first is that the disclosures are something of a counterweight to the notion that French and German banks were more prudent than their US or UK rivals.

For example, the gross sum that Societe Generale of France received from the Fed via AIG was $11.9bn; and there was a gross transfer of Fed money to Deutsche Bank of $11.8bn.

It's also striking that in respect of this particularly debacle, neither Royal Bank of Scotland or HBOS - the UK's more accident-prone banks - were particularly exposed.

Of the British banks, Barclays benefited most from the lifeline given to AIG, receiving some $8.5bn (gross) of the unprecedented support given by the US central bank.

Anyway, the big point is that the losses and disruption for Goldman, Soc Gen, Deutsche and Barclays would have been hideous if AIG had imploded.

And if you were an investor in them, or a creditor to them, you'd be grateful for their luck - that they hitched their fortunes to a business, AIG, that was so enormous and complex that the US government had no other option but to put it on life support.

But if Goldman, Soc Gen, Deutsche and Barclays were to claim that they managed themselves more prudently than competitors, you might raise a querying eyebrow.



To: Rock_nj who wrote (162982)3/17/2009 3:35:12 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361457
 
The Gift That Keeps on Giving
______________________________________________________________

Lead Editorial
The New York Times
March 17, 2009

After four bailouts totaling some $170 billion, the American International Group has finally answered some of the questions about where the money went. Unfortunately, the answers have only succeeded in raising many more questions.

On Saturday, Americans learned that A.I.G. planned to pay $165 million in bonuses to executives and employees in the very division that caused the problems that led to the federal bailouts. Taxpayers have every right to be outraged, and President Obama was right to acknowledge that outrage on Monday, when he vowed to try to stop the payments.

Mr. Obama’s tough talk, however, contrasted with comments made by his top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, and by the Treasury Department. They had already expressed dismay but said that legally they could do nothing to stop the bonuses, which, in fact, had already mostly been paid on Friday.

It is frustrating enough for Americans to try to figure out which part of that mixed message reflects the administration’s true position. But the bigger issue is that the bonuses are something of a distraction. Seen by themselves, the payments are huge, but they are less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the money already committed to the A.I.G. bailout.

Which brings us to the second disclosure of recent days. It was common knowledge that most of the A.I.G. bailout money had been funneled to the company’s trading partners — banks and other financial firms that would have lost big if A.I.G. were allowed to fail. On Sunday, after much prodding by Congress and the public, A.I.G. finally released the partners’ identities, along with amounts paid thus far to make them whole.

The largest single recipient was Goldman Sachs ($12.9 billion). The amount — hardly chump change even by Wall Street standards — appears to contradict earlier assertions by Goldman that its exposure to risk from A.I.G. was “not material” and that its positions were offset by collateral or hedges. If so, why didn’t the hedges pay up instead of the American taxpayers?

Other recipients include 20 European banks that received a total of $58.8 billion and Merrill Lynch ($6.8 billion), Bank of America ($5.2 billion) and Citigroup ($2.3 billion).

Altogether, the disclosures account for $107.8 billion in A.I.G. bailout money. Which leaves us wondering about the rest of the money. Another $30 billion was added to the A.I.G. bailout pot this month and must be accounted for as soon as it is spent. That leaves some $32 billion unaccounted for. Where did it go?

Taxpayers also need to be told the precise nature of the banks’ dealings with A.I.G. Appearing on “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, described A.I.G. as a company “that made all kinds of unconscionable bets.” Well, on the other side of those bets are the banks that received the bailout money. It is possible that one side of a bet is acting unconscionably and that another side is acting in good faith. But it’s also possible that both sides are trying to play an unseemly game to their own advantage.

Congress must investigate, and the new disclosures give them enough to get started. Untangling all the entanglements is not only essential to understanding how the system became so badly broken, but also to restoring faith in the government that it is up to the task of fixing it.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company